These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Hight sec pod gank
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Whitehound
#21 - 2013-08-27 08:22:29 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
I guess you're going with the lesser known saying:

Pre Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Are you trying to tank my comment with a Latin saying?!

I am saying that one and one is two, that it has players with grudges against the game maker and that the game is used to vent it off. If you want to disagree then you have to come with a good explanation of why this cannot be, because I do not think any of this is news.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Donbe Scurred
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-08-27 08:54:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Donbe Scurred
Whitehound wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
I guess you're going with the lesser known saying:

Pre Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Are you trying to tank my comment with a Latin saying?!

I am saying that one and one is two, that it has players with grudges against the game maker and that the game is used to vent it off. If you want to disagree then you have to come with a good explanation of why this cannot be, because I do not think any of this is news.


Man, you've changed since you got ganked.Shocked

You seem to be dwelling on this too much, its time to move on...
Whitehound
#23 - 2013-08-27 09:03:42 UTC
Donbe Scurred wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
I guess you're going with the lesser known saying:

Pre Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Are you trying to tank my comment with a Latin saying?!

I am saying that one and one is two, that it has players with grudges against the game maker and that the game is used to vent it off. If you want to disagree then you have to come with a good explanation of why this cannot be, because I do not think any of this is news.


Man, you've changed since you got ganked.Shocked

You seem to be dwelling on this too much, I think its time to move on...

Nonsense.

Why do you not want me to discuss this? You sure came here to read, which shows that you are interested in this.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2013-08-27 09:28:34 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Donbe Scurred wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
I guess you're going with the lesser known saying:

Pre Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Are you trying to tank my comment with a Latin saying?!

I am saying that one and one is two, that it has players with grudges against the game maker and that the game is used to vent it off. If you want to disagree then you have to come with a good explanation of why this cannot be, because I do not think any of this is news.


Man, you've changed since you got ganked.Shocked

You seem to be dwelling on this too much, I think its time to move on...

Nonsense.

Why do you not want me to discuss this? You sure came here to read, which shows that you are interested in this.

No, it's not nonsense. You don't see it.
I agree wigh him, you changed a bit.
It influenced you more than it should have.

That YOU'RE not seeing it doesn't mean anything regarding the fact of the matter.
Whitehound
#25 - 2013-08-27 09:49:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Solstice Project wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Donbe Scurred wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
I guess you're going with the lesser known saying:

Pre Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Are you trying to tank my comment with a Latin saying?!

I am saying that one and one is two, that it has players with grudges against the game maker and that the game is used to vent it off. If you want to disagree then you have to come with a good explanation of why this cannot be, because I do not think any of this is news.


Man, you've changed since you got ganked.Shocked

You seem to be dwelling on this too much, I think its time to move on...

Nonsense.

Why do you not want me to discuss this? You sure came here to read, which shows that you are interested in this.

No, it's not nonsense. You don't see it.
I agree wigh him, you changed a bit.
It influenced you more than it should have.

That YOU'RE not seeing it doesn't mean anything regarding the fact of the matter.

Yes, it is nonsense. Stop pretending you would suddenly care for me. I quote myself:

"See who dares to participate without going stupid..."

And now guess what you just did. It is fine by me just so you know.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Nick Kumamoto
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-08-27 10:00:50 UTC
I only have one rule when it comes to travel (or anything for that matter that involves being undocked.)

Never AFK anything and anywhere.

Most of what I write in terms of posts and/or comments is meant as "tongue-in-cheek", i.e. part irony, part sarcasm but meant in good fun.

On a more serious note. I want to marry CCP karkur. Is there a EVE dating service I can call?

Donbe Scurred
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-08-27 10:05:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Donbe Scurred
Whitehound wrote:

Nonsense.

Why do you not want me to discuss this? You sure came here to read, which shows that you are interested in this.


Discussing it is fine and most of what you say is usually interesting in one way or another but you haven't posted about anything else for almost a day now and haven't posted about much else besides the hacker since it happened, I consider that dwelling, especially since you usually don't comment on it at all. Your only fueling the fire that you need to let burn out. My opinion of course, to each his own.
Whitehound
#28 - 2013-08-27 10:23:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Donbe Scurred wrote:
Discussing it is fine but you haven't posted about anything else for almost a day now and haven't posted about much else since it happened, I consider that dwelling, especially since you usually don't comment on it at all. Your only fueling the fire that you need to let burn out. My opinion of course, to each his own.

But what if I was on to something? You would deny it, right? You would try to tell me that the game would change me and talk me into leaving C&P. Or in short, these are not the droids I am looking for ... Twisted

If you are having a grudge against CCP or EVE in general, or have been banned in the past, then just say it. I am not the one who will judge you for it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
KevinleBeu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2013-08-27 11:11:56 UTC
Nick Kumamoto wrote:
I only have one rule when it comes to travel (or anything for that matter that involves being undocked.)

Never AFK anything and anywhere.


So CCP need to remove the autopilot, you want it? do it or gay
flakeys
Doomheim
#30 - 2013-08-27 12:05:51 UTC
KevinleBeu wrote:
Nick Kumamoto wrote:
I only have one rule when it comes to travel (or anything for that matter that involves being undocked.)

Never AFK anything and anywhere.


So CCP need to remove the autopilot, you want it? do it or gay



Is this a game of pot meet kettle ? Roll

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
Dragon Outlaw
Rogue Fleet
#31 - 2013-08-27 15:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Dragon Outlaw
Nick Kumamoto wrote:
I only have one rule when it comes to travel (or anything for that matter that involves being undocked.)

Never AFK anything and anywhere.


They should remove auto-pilot from the game then.

EDIT: Oh and...what about AFK cloacking??? I guess CCP should look at that to right? Smile
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#32 - 2013-08-27 18:00:58 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Whitehound wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
I guess you're going with the lesser known saying:

Pre Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

Are you trying to tank my comment with a Latin saying?!

I am saying that one and one is two, that it has players with grudges against the game maker and that the game is used to vent it off. If you want to disagree then you have to come with a good explanation of why this cannot be, because I do not think any of this is news.



That phrase translates as "Before this, therefore because of this" (as opposed to the more common post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after this, therefore because of this").

You're assigning to people's actions motivations whose triggering event occurred after said actions.



Also, I don't see how creating content for the game makers is a good way to vent displeasure towards them.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Whitehound
#33 - 2013-08-27 18:16:35 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
That phrase translates as "Before this, therefore because of this" (as opposed to the more common post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after this, therefore because of this").

You're assigning to people's actions motivations whose triggering event occurred after said actions.

Also, I don't see how creating content for the game makers is a good way to vent displeasure towards them.

I know the saying, thank you. It is however not what I am saying. Read again, I am saying one and one is two. It is a fact that people hold grudges and find ways to vent off.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#34 - 2013-08-27 18:32:15 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
That phrase translates as "Before this, therefore because of this" (as opposed to the more common post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after this, therefore because of this").

You're assigning to people's actions motivations whose triggering event occurred after said actions.

Also, I don't see how creating content for the game makers is a good way to vent displeasure towards them.

I know the saying, thank you. It is however not what I am saying. Read again, I am saying one and one is two. It is a fact that people hold grudges and find ways to vent off.


You presented specific examples and suggested that people hold grudges against CCP for being punished for breaking the EULA. The rhetorical problems with that are as follows:
1) For the claim to be relevant to this discussion, you would have to be claiming that autopiloting in a pod is a breach of the EULA.
2) The specific examples you present as evidence only fit your claim if you ignore the normal temporal order of things.
3) You seem to conclude that banning people for breaking the EULA presents CCP with a problem.

Finally, you clearly didn't read what I said.
RubyPorto wrote:
I don't see how creating content for the game makers is a good way to vent displeasure towards them.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Whitehound
#35 - 2013-08-27 18:54:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
RubyPorto wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
That phrase translates as "Before this, therefore because of this" (as opposed to the more common post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after this, therefore because of this").

You're assigning to people's actions motivations whose triggering event occurred after said actions.

Also, I don't see how creating content for the game makers is a good way to vent displeasure towards them.

I know the saying, thank you. It is however not what I am saying. Read again, I am saying one and one is two. It is a fact that people hold grudges and find ways to vent off.


You presented specific examples and suggested that people hold grudges against CCP for being punished for breaking the EULA. The rhetorical problems with that are as follows:
1) For the claim to be relevant to this discussion, you would have to be claiming that autopiloting in a pod is a breach of the EULA.
2) The specific examples you present as evidence only fit your claim if you ignore the normal temporal order of things.
3) You seem to conclude that banning people for breaking the EULA presents CCP with a problem.

Finally, you clearly didn't read what I said.
RubyPorto wrote:
I don't see how creating content for the game makers is a good way to vent displeasure towards them.

No. You seem to have forgotten that I was asking a question in addition. I was not giving an answer to it, but you did. You then went straight on denying it, which makes the current discussion a really strange one.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Motoko Kasaki
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-08-28 00:59:54 UTC
Ladies, chill out.
Let's just welcome the OP to eve.
/slowclap.

Glory to the State.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#37 - 2013-08-28 03:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Whitehound wrote:
No. You seem to have forgotten that I was asking a question in addition. I was not giving an answer to it, but you did. You then went straight on denying it, which makes the current discussion a really strange one.


You seem to keep forgetting to read the whole post before replying:

RubyPorto wrote:
I don't see how creating content for the game makers is a good way to vent displeasure towards them.

To rephrase:
I don't see how people creating content for the game presents the game makers with any sort of problem.
I don't see how people creating content for the game because they were banned presents the game makers with any sort of problem.


The only thing that I am denying is the validity of the assumptions and premises on which your question is based, which isn't really strange, since you can't have a coherent conversation when you aren't talking about the same flavor of reality.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Elizabeth Aideron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-08-28 04:12:14 UTC
KevinleBeu wrote:
Nick Kumamoto wrote:
I only have one rule when it comes to travel (or anything for that matter that involves being undocked.)

Never AFK anything and anywhere.


So CCP need to remove the autopilot, you want it? do it or gay


Or gay what? We need this resolved, op.
Whitehound
#39 - 2013-08-28 07:46:37 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
No. You seem to have forgotten that I was asking a question in addition. I was not giving an answer to it, but you did. You then went straight on denying it, which makes the current discussion a really strange one.


You seem to keep forgetting to read the whole post before replying:

RubyPorto wrote:
I don't see how creating content for the game makers is a good way to vent displeasure towards them.

To rephrase:
I don't see how people creating content for the game presents the game makers with any sort of problem.
I don't see how people creating content for the game because they were banned presents the game makers with any sort of problem.


The only thing that I am denying is the validity of the assumptions and premises on which your question is based, which isn't really strange, since you can't have a coherent conversation when you aren't talking about the same flavor of reality.

Your inability to see is an excuse and frankly your problem. Not mine. It is something you need to worry about and not others. I am also not making assumptions here. These are facts. People do hold grudges and they use games to vent off. Also remind yourself that only because a logic can be a fallacy does not meant it is always a fallacy. That too is a fallacy. You then assumed to know the answer, but are denying it. Why do you not simply admit not to have an answer? This would be the sensible thing to say, and not "I don't see". "I don't see" is what a blind man says.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#40 - 2013-08-28 09:26:41 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Whitehound wrote:
Your inability to see is an excuse and frankly your problem. Not mine. It is something you need to worry about and not others.
You claim that it is a problem for the game developers when players create content. Shouldn't you be able to support that claim?
Quote:
I am also not making assumptions here. These are facts. People do hold grudges and they use games to vent off.
Point to me where I said they didn't. I am questioning your assumption that that "venting" is a problem for the game developers, especially when it comes in the form of creating content for the game.
Quote:
Also remind yourself that only because a logic can be a fallacy does not meant it is always a fallacy. That too is a fallacy. You then assumed to know the answer, but are denying it. Why do you not simply admit not to have an answer? This would be the sensible thing to say, and not "I don't see". "I don't see" is what a blind man says.


Actually, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is always bad reasoning (in fact, any fallacy is*). Claiming that simply because something happened after another thing that it was caused by that thing is unsound reasoning. And, again, in the case of your two examples, the supposed results (the venting you claim was evidenced) occurred (or were set in motion) before the supposed triggering event (the bans), and to claim that the supposed triggering event caused the venting is indefensible reasoning by any standard.

"I do not see" is what someone who understands the impossibility of proving a negative says. As convenient as it would be to pretend otherwise, I am not, in fact, omniscient. There are facts I do not know, arguments I have not been exposed to. That is why I say "I do not see" instead of "it does not exist."
In this case, the pertinent argument that I have not been exposed to is one supporting the claim that people creating content for this game (as "venting") is a problem for the game developers. You made that claim, where's your argument to support it?



*The conclusion of an argument with true premises can be true without implying that the argument is sound, good, or even sane. Consider the following example:
1) Cows produce Milk
2) The Sun is Bright
Therefore
3) The Moon orbits the Earth.

Both Premises are true. The Conclusion is true. But the argument is unsound, bad, and insane.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon