EVE General Discussion

And this is where any semblance of mature non-vindictive conversation ends between us, with your ironic assumption that I don't know what a citation is. I'll tell you what a citation is. A citation is a reference to a credible primary or secondary source of information that is peer reviewed and itself presented with falsifiable evidence. I've been writing for science magazines and E-zines for fifteen years. I've seen 'citations' like yours before. Antivaxxers who comment on vaccination breakthroughs love to froth at the mouth 'citing' blogs and anecdotes from across the web. You want to convince me, first you need something that is up-to-date in research terms (ie not more than three to five years old, depending on the research). Secondly, it needs to be peer reviewed. And thirdly, it needs to actually address the claims you're making.

Your citations were none of the above.

Additionally, read the correction I made in my post. I recognise the author's authority in the field, but I don't recognise the authority of the work you linked me to, as it was little more than a blog, and authority =/= argument. You still failed to address the claims you made, or provide a peer reviewed source (from him or otherwise), or provide current up-to-date research.

Cool... I like it...

lol remiel... talking to a lying hypocrit makes no sense, so why even try? It's IZ. All that helps is straight out mentioning the beeshit so others can see it too ... and that's that.

infinity ziona is a lying hypocrite

source

Okay, allow me to clarify.

You need a RELEVANT SUBSTANTIAL citation that addresses your claims. You may as well have cited Snow White and the Seven Dwarves instead of what you gave me, because it was irrelevant and unsubstantial support for your assertions.

Note: you are missing, more than likely ignoring, the key points I made. Your 'citation' was out of date, not peer reviewed, and not relevant.



If your evidence is impossible to find, then why are you making claims that rely on it? Additionally, the evidence that 100% of people playing EVE subbed for the spaceships is the lack of ambulation content to begin with. Clarification: everyone that subbed on EVE subbed for the spaceships. Some people also want ambulation.

Is that clear yet? I did try to highlight this point for you with perspective, but once again you ignore the primary points and poke holes in the details that are mostly irrelevant anyway. All this frothing at the mouth demanding WIS is all well and good, but you are achieving nothing because, and I have already told you why, if it comes, it will come when it is well thought out and has meaning and purpose in the game. All you're really doing when you ignore these main points that have been repeatedly made to you is denying the reality of what EVE is, and that is why so many people fight against you. WIS will probably come, but I will bet that you'll find something to complain about still when it does, because you are just that kind of person. The forums are loaded with them, otherwise they wouldn't be so entertaining.

Look, EVE is a spaceship game. Your avatar is an afterthought, because ultimately, your ship is your gameplay avatar more than your actual character. EVE substitutes the character for the ship for gameplay purposes, because you can't run around in space casting spells and fighting with swords. That's what EVE is, has always been, and always will be. Ambulation has always been an afterthought, and one that nearly destroyed the game because it wasn't well thought out. I assure you, there are plenty of people that want it, but they all want the spaceships too or they wouldn't be here. Everyone that plays EVE wants the spaceships, or they wouldn't be here. That's the evidence that 100% of players subbed for the spaceships. Even if it's just to look at them, or buy and trade them. But not everyone that subbed wants ambulation, the evidence of which is apparent in the resistance to WIS, which is why it is a low priority and a high risk proposition for CCP. One that, in the end, may just not be worth it, because not everyone that wants it but doesn't get it is going to quit over it. In the end, they're all still here for the spaceships.

Now, allow me to teach you a little something about the burden of proof. If you make a claim, you need to substantiate it.



No. A claim asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I explained why your citation simply isn't good enough, and in the end why the claim itself is irrelevant to EVE in any case. It's not my problem if you ignore that explanation, but I don't need to provide evidence for a position of rejection because no evidence has been presented to convince me not to reject it. Do you understand? I don't need to counter with evidence because if your position was substantiated in the first place, I wouldn't need to.

Additionally, a person's relevance is unrelated to the relevance of their claims. I've never called you irrelevant, I called your claims irrelevant, and your citation irrelevant. Let's try to keep the spittle flinging to a minimum, shall we? There's another reason people don't like you. You lack respectful discourse.

lol

There are a lot of genuine concerns surrounding CCP putting development time into Avatar content. But as long as those concerns are addressed, it's entirely possible to do it in a way that makes everyone happy. I say everyone, but a few people are incapable of being happy no matter what you do. Those people just need ignoring.

Nothing stealth about it

I dont think we will get Walking in Station/Ships any time soon, but maybe we can get Sitting in Pod view.

You told me yesterday that my arguments had been debunked many, many times. I'm just asking for a single example...shouldn't be that difficult. I figured you'd be excited to show me up.