Guild Wars 2

BS, your exact words were:

“Here is my response: they should be a drain on their party. They should know that and they should feel somewhat bad about it. They should make an effort to learn best practices and implement them if possible. If they can’t, won’t, or don’t care that’s fine but they shouldn’t have their bad choice reinforced with positivity.”

The part to emphasize is:

“They should know that and they should feel somewhat bad about it. "

Like I said before, if it was not your intent to say that, then you should word your posts better. And don’t try to lie and accuse me of warping anything. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt that you just worded your post incorrectly with the disclaimer. So you’re trying to lie and accuse others for your mistakes?

…and I try to be nice. I swear…

His words are more than clear enough within the context of the conversation. You, however, are trying too hard by reaching in order to prove what exactly… I dont even know. Grasping for straws as they say, when you can’t back up your stance with logic.

If you are really going to try that hard in fooling yourself otherwise, I suggest you take a deep breath, step back, and try a little harder to understand what is being said. This way, you don’t sound sound like someone who is brain-dead when posting in this forum.

So interpreting what someone literally says is grasping at straws now?

I can tell you exactly what the context of the words were, no need to imply I don’t know:

hybrid.5027:

I read your OP. You want better boon sharing so that the guys hiding in the back at 1200 range aren’t as much a drain on their party.

The start of the reply already has a negative tone, implying the OP wishes to hide. Whether you want to call it grasping at straws or not, I still think it’s jumping to conclusions.

hybrid.5027:

Here is my response: they should be a drain on their party. They should know that and they should feel somewhat bad about it. They should make an effort to learn best practices and implement them if possible. If they can’t, won’t, or don’t care that’s fine but they shouldn’t have their bad choice reinforced with positivity.

The words emphasized really paints hybrid’s tone. It’s negative. If I were jumping to conclusions, I’d say he wanted to say players not adhering to what is described as ‘best practices’ despite not having any context to it, should feel bad. hybrid did add the ‘somewhat’ part though so maybe not so bad as to not feel punished but that’s, again, jumping to conclusions.

He ends it with “can’t, won’t or don’t”. In context, won’t would be the choice since the will to play with ‘best practices’ is ignored. Don’t could be a choice as it implies the player simply isn’t playing with ‘best practices’ which could be attributed to lack of research, ignorance of what ‘best practices’ is, or choosing to play adversely despite instructions. Can’t, on the other hand isn’t a choice. Someone who can’t adhere to ‘best practices’ may not have good reflexes, might have bad lag, is impaired with a disability such as color blindness, or some other effect that would interfere with using ‘best practices’ by choice yet it is still grouped with into the ‘bad choice’ category, none of which should be reinforced with positivity.

For the last part, I gave hybrid the benefit of the doubt and chalked it up to the whole “can’t, won’t or don’t” phrase just sounding like a good way to top off a statement, but I can guarantee you he didn’t think of all the implications those words might hold.

Then I reply:

Leo G.4501:

IMO, this is a far more selfish attitude. To me, it’s putting a ‘meta’ (oooh, the naughty word!) before players not because it is what’s best for the group, but what’s best to conform to some strategy…a strategy that might not be best suited for all the players of your team.

I can tell you what I meant by those words but instead I’ll take them in context.

In my opinion, I took the attitude (with all the emphasized words and negative context) as more selfish. To put a strategy (whatever the current build/tactic used to accomplish the goal in an optimal fashion) before the people in your group and players in general is selfish, if not more selfish thank what you conclude the OP is after.

The last part does imply that some players might not be able to perform whatever is ‘best practice’ suggesting I did read into the context of the whole “can’t, won’t or don’t” but it could also mean builds better suited to range or support since we’re talking about sharing boons. Having a support type able to share boons without nullifying their range or a ranged attacker who still wants to contribute as much as they can.

con’t

Then hybrid wrote:

hybrid.5027:

Encouraging people to use best practices is selfish? Laughable. For the record, I don’t care what stupid crap pugs do. If I join a pug I do it under the assumption that they will do stupid stuff and fail and I’ll have to carry. I don’t expect them to use the community strategies but when they do its a nice bonus.

Swapping the context of my reply, directing the ‘selfish’ comment toward ‘encouraging best practices’ sidesteps the real context of the comment: the negativity toward players not using ‘best practices’. Encouragement is positive. His original reply is a prime example of negative reinforcement or negative punishment depending on how you look at it. The rest is just rubbish better ignored.

I reply with:

Leo G.4501:

To me, the way you worded it said “If you don’t abide by the best practices then you should be punished.”

If that’s not what you meant then you should word your intent better. Why would you want to make people feel bad playing a game? Reward the players that do things right, sure, but punish players that aren’t actively trying to do bad is crossing the line.

I basically state what I believe he means but infer that I could be misinterpreting what he meant followed by further asking if rewarding ‘best practices’ remains a better option than punishing ‘bad practices’.

I’m replied to with:

hybrid.5027:

My exact quote was, "They should make an effort to learn best practices and implement them if possible. If they can’t, won’t, or don’t care that’s fine but they shouldn’t have their bad choice reinforced with positivity.

This is a lie. Those aren’t his exact words (or at least not all the words which fit with them in context) nor was such a meaning within the context of his words. All sorts of shinanigans happens and it’s not worth going on trying to explain it.

I appreciate your concern, Tom yzf, but I don’t have a problem understanding what is being said or even remove myself from the perspective of posts to look for possible meanings that may have been missed due to bias. I will say though, that your reply to me seems quite bias in its own right. Surely you can tell that I’m attempting to have civil conversations yet am still hounded with accusations of being a troll, not listening, not understanding, not answering, mocking others, warping people’s words, being made a joke of.

I can still reply and still describe methods to improve the game. It’s your right to have your own opinion of them, but most of the posters in this thread have gone far beyond expressing an opinion.

Regardless of negative or positive, the people who do not seek to maximize their contribution to the party are simply doing the party and themselves a disservice. While it would be nice to have diverse builds and all. You got to remember that this is an MMO, and like all MMO, even the popular ones like WoW, has only one optimal build and rotation for each class.

If people want to play a more supportive role then a ranger/mesmer/guardian would suit them because even if full zerk, their primary contribution is supporting their party with utilities.

Which leads to another thing that alot of players need to understand that gear doesn’t dictate your role in this game, its your class that does. If you run anything outside of zerk, you are basically telling people that you need to have more personal survival at the expense of your parties survival due to either lack of skill or lack of knowledge of the dungeon you are doing.

This game is already too lenient on bad players, these players end up developing bad habits because of it. They shouldn’t be reinforced positively or they will never improve.

Optimal doesn’t necessarily mean fast clear times. You can also optimize for roleplaying.

Leo G is hilarious. You’re a keen detective. You managed to uncover that the word “can’t” is a negative. My god please do not tell anyone this startling revelation.

FWIW, who cares if my “tone” was negative? Did I say anything factually wrong? Is my essential point correct? If you’re not mature enough to be able to process stern, frank conversation without being offended I suggest avoiding debate entirely.

Or just accept that not everyone is capable of factual discussion and instead get offended when faced with negativity. You can argue all day long how you are right but truth is that most people won’t accept it if they don’t like how you present it.

i submit :(

holy wall of text. ok you win.

Wethospu.6437:

Or just accept that not everyone is capable of factual discussion and instead get offended when faced with negativity. You can argue all day long how you are right but truth is that most people won’t accept it if they don’t like how you present it.

Cato the Younger wasn’t popular either. He certainly didn’t get elected Consul because he knew you had to be fake-nice and suck up to the voters. He was satisfied with having principle than winning popularity contests.

I’m popular and correct.

hybrid.5027:

Leo G is hilarious. You’re a keen detective. You managed to uncover that the word “can’t” is a negative. My god please do not tell anyone this startling revelation.

FWIW, who cares if my “tone” was negative? Did I say anything factually wrong? Is my essential point correct? If you’re not mature enough to be able to process stern, frank conversation without being offended I suggest avoiding debate entirely.

Your essential point was an opinion. You can have your opinion but whether you agree or disagree with it doesn’t make you right or others wrong.

As far as maturity, I’ve attempted to uphold that to the best of my ability. If you’re going to insinuate a lack of maturity, how about aiming some of your ire at the peanut gallery who have nothing to do but try to pick forum fights by prodding with passive aggressive posts…well, then you’d probably have to aim some of that at yourself.

Regardless of if I take offense to whomever replies to me, I’m going to try to address them as plainly and maturely as they deserve or not at all.

Wethospu.6437:

Or just accept that not everyone is capable of factual discussion and instead get offended when faced with negativity. You can argue all day long how you are right but truth is that most people won’t accept it if they don’t like how you present it.

You miss my point, which isn’t your fault as the discussion has flew far into left field.

Factual discussion has gone waaaaaaay back on page 2. When faced with negativity, I simply ask questions. Most of my participation in the discussion wasn’t even an argument, it was a challenge to discuss rather than simply dismiss with a blunt argument. I never claimed I was right, in fact I acknowledge as much the problems that could come with the problems of sharing boons.

Now not accepting how people present their posts, I have every right to and I’d sooner question why I would ever except flame bait and troll posts as an answer to anything, which is mostly what I’ve gotten for my troubles.

If you knew the op was wrong why did you act like a moderator to try and get us to discuss an issue we had already laid to rest with the arguements we made? And why did you get involved in the thread at all? I got the impression you were just doing it to be annoying. Because as i pointed out, there was absolutely no substance in your posts.

I ended up humouring you because I was bored even though i had some doubt at whether your posts were genuine or just trying to stir the pot. If they were genuine then i dont know what to think of you. Self righteous moderator who feels the need to draw out a discussion after its ended?

Kind of fitting seeing as you keep coming back.

spoj.9672:

If you knew the op was wrong why did you act like a moderator to try and get us to discuss an issue we had already laid to rest with the arguements we made?

Because he wasn’t wrong. And mostly the reasons arguments were laid at all is because I pressed for further discussion.

And why did you get involved in the thread at all? I got the impression you were just doing it to be annoying. Because as i pointed out, there was absolutely no substance in your posts.

You can point all you like, it doesn’t make you right. And like I mentioned before, I had a vested interest in discussion of such a proposition because I still plan to make a proper suggestion thread and a version of the idea is a part of it.

I ended up humouring you because I was bored even though i had some doubt at whether your posts were genuine or just trying to stir the pot. If they were genuine then i dont know what to think of you. Self righteous moderator who feels the need to draw out a discussion after its ended?

You can assume I’m a self righteous moderator when it comes to suggestions, I don’t care. The state of affairs of the forums is more a communal product, however that doesn’t make that product acceptable, particularly when people are making suggestions. If you don’t like my involvement in such threads you can not reply to my posts.

I look forward to your suggestion thread.

This is sooo weird..

how in the hell is this thread still open and the other constructive thread locked? I know they are in here bc i just got infracted for calling Nike a phallus, which isn’t really a stretch to say. <3 nike

Well, I still hope it was simply a missclick or so. Since I did not get any message for why my thread got locked..

This place must be a sunctum, let’s take it over.
The title is quite catchy too.