24 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 62nd comment:
quixadhal said:
In commercial game development, it's far more likely that the owner won't, in fact, ever touch the keyboard himself. Rather, the owner will either be the idea man who thinks of the design and then recruits people to bring it to life, or finds someone else with that vision and coordinates building a team to make it happen.
Sure, but I was really talking about muds - and more specifically, in the example given, a mud using a stock codebase.
I didn't clearly describe the definitions I used, either, as I wasn't expecting my post to get picked apart. But if I were to extend the same statement to include commercial games, I would loosely define "owner" as the business entity that legally owns the game.
Sandi said:
While it would seem that the 'best' game would be produced by the whole team contributing great ideas, the truth is the that biggest, longest running games seem to be bastions of mediocrity.
That's a little harsh, although I agree there's a certain element of truth in your statement. However just to reiterate, my point didn't concern whether a mud was good or bad (as these are subjective terms anyway), but rather, whether or not it distinguished itself (i.e., stood out) from the competition.
Sandi said:
I'm sure KaVir would protest if I suggested GodWars was "better" than GWII, but look at the figures. For all its flaws, GW is immensely popular.
In terms of playerbase, I've not seen any GW1 muds with as many players as GW2. I guess you could add up the total players of all GW1 muds, but I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison.
24 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 63rd comment:
KaVir said:
if (1) "the codebase is stock", and (2) those builders aren't allowed to use their work elsewhere because their areas "are all that the game has to distinguish itself", then that implies that every noteworthy part of the game was written by someone other than the owner/s
I'm not sure how that implication follows. The word "every" is particularly surprising to me.
KaVir said:
I wasn't expecting the claws to suddenly come out like that and kill the discussion in its tracks.
Apparently some people object to asking for clarification. As I said in my previous post I'm not entirely sure what happened. I thought our conversation was interesting, for whatever that's worth.
Sandi said:
The only person calling you an "evil troll" is you, yourself.
David Haley said:
I suppose some of the reactions were more along the lines of "surely you get it, stop your evil trolling", which frankly mystifies me even more.
The only person calling you an "evil troll" is you, yourself.
Ah, well, then I guess you have been calling me stupid, then. I'm not sure what else you could possibly have meant with statements like "do you really expect us to believe you can't parse an English sentence? ".
Maybe, though, you would be willing to clarify yourself. That would be nice, because it would appear that misunderstanding is being piled on top of miscommunication. It's as good a time as any, assuming you care about such things.
24 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 64th comment:
Missed this bit. Should have noticed it earlier because you've said it or hinted at it before, too.
I think that might explain why some confusion came about. I was not talking about distinguishing as in standing out from competition, but distinguishing as in being different and/or unique (and therefore, the main characteristic to determine "good" or "bad", i.e. worth of the game). This is why I was surprised at the reaction (not from you) because I thought my statement was actually quite innocuous and almost a tautological one, in fact. And it was in that light that your original statement was unclear (for the initial interpretation I made was of a very incorrect statement, and I don't usually believe that people are saying very incorrect things); you since cleared up what you meant and I hope that this clears up some things as well.
KaVir said:
However just to reiterate, my point didn't concern whether a mud was good or bad (as these are subjective terms anyway), but rather, whether or not it distinguished itself (i.e., stood out) from the competition.
I think that might explain why some confusion came about. I was not talking about distinguishing as in standing out from competition, but distinguishing as in being different and/or unique (and therefore, the main characteristic to determine "good" or "bad", i.e. worth of the game). This is why I was surprised at the reaction (not from you) because I thought my statement was actually quite innocuous and almost a tautological one, in fact. And it was in that light that your original statement was unclear (for the initial interpretation I made was of a very incorrect statement, and I don't usually believe that people are saying very incorrect things); you since cleared up what you meant and I hope that this clears up some things as well.
24 Sep, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 65th comment:
David Haley said:
Ah, well, then I guess you have been calling me stupid, then.
This is the crux of it, really. You're constantly putting words in the mouths of other people, ascribing meaning and intent that is usually unflattering. You insult others, put them on the defensive, then hide behind "Oh, I misunderstood."
David Haley said:
I'm not sure what else you could possibly have meant with statements like "do you really expect us to believe you can't parse an English sentence? ".
Are you familiar with the story about the little boy who cried "Wolf!"? I'm saying it should be obvious to everyone that you are too smart to consistently misconstrue what others say unless it is a deliberate ploy on your part.
As I explained in a PM, it has been my intent here to be helpful, not vindictive, yet your reply made it clear my words were falling on deaf ears. You seem quite convinced you are always right. But, as a last try, let me ask you this:
How can you always be right if you misunderstand so often?
24 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 66th comment:
I'm not entirely sure why you think it is conducive to useful conversation to continually refuse to clarify what it is you're trying to say, especially when you are told up-front, absolutely unambiguously that your meaning is not clear. You keep saying you're trying to be helpful or "teach a lesson", and yet you consistently refuse to do that which is asked of you as the most helpful thing you could do to move this conversation forward.
For instance, here you say that that was the crux of it, and yet you found it unnecessary to say what it was you actually were saying. You have repeated this pattern several times, in this thread, in others, and in PMs.
To answer your question, when I ask people to clarify something, it is for one of two reasons:
- The person could mean several things, and it is not clear which thing they meant. Usually this happens when the issue is subtle to begin with. Sometimes it happens when I see subtlety where none was intended. In any case, I prefer to simply ask what is meant instead of making assumptions.
- The most likely meanings seem odd to me (where odd usually means "incorrect"); since I don't like to assume that people are saying incorrect things, I prefer to ask if that is what was really meant or if I missed something.
I'm not sure why "eliminating miscommunication" is being associated with "misunderstanding".
Most of the time, with most people, it works just fine, as in fact it did in this instance with the person I was actually talking to. I'm not sure why other people felt it necessary to jump in and burn me at the stake for simply asking if KaVir meant X. It's like asking for clarification is some kind of bad thing. You even just said as much, because you associate being incorrect with asking for clarification on a point that might have been misunderstood. It's like some form of internet machismo, where asking for explanation is verboten. (I guess it's a lot more entertaining to just talk past and flame each other.)
I'll finish with the following observation:
How exactly am I supposed to interpret the second sentence as anything other than an accusation of trolling – for that is exactly what a deliberate ploy is? Please, clarify what you were trying to say, because frankly I'm not sure, and I'd rather not make assumptions.
For instance, here you say that that was the crux of it, and yet you found it unnecessary to say what it was you actually were saying. You have repeated this pattern several times, in this thread, in others, and in PMs.
To answer your question, when I ask people to clarify something, it is for one of two reasons:
- The person could mean several things, and it is not clear which thing they meant. Usually this happens when the issue is subtle to begin with. Sometimes it happens when I see subtlety where none was intended. In any case, I prefer to simply ask what is meant instead of making assumptions.
- The most likely meanings seem odd to me (where odd usually means "incorrect"); since I don't like to assume that people are saying incorrect things, I prefer to ask if that is what was really meant or if I missed something.
I'm not sure why "eliminating miscommunication" is being associated with "misunderstanding".
Most of the time, with most people, it works just fine, as in fact it did in this instance with the person I was actually talking to. I'm not sure why other people felt it necessary to jump in and burn me at the stake for simply asking if KaVir meant X. It's like asking for clarification is some kind of bad thing. You even just said as much, because you associate being incorrect with asking for clarification on a point that might have been misunderstood. It's like some form of internet machismo, where asking for explanation is verboten. (I guess it's a lot more entertaining to just talk past and flame each other.)
I'll finish with the following observation:
Quote
The only person calling you an "evil troll" is you, yourself.
Quote
I'm saying it should be obvious to everyone that you are too smart to consistently misconstrue what others say unless it is a deliberate ploy on your part.
How exactly am I supposed to interpret the second sentence as anything other than an accusation of trolling – for that is exactly what a deliberate ploy is? Please, clarify what you were trying to say, because frankly I'm not sure, and I'd rather not make assumptions.
24 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 67th comment:
David Haley said:
For instance, here you say that that was the crux of it, and yet you found it unnecessary to say what it was you actually were saying. You have repeated this pattern several times, in this thread, in others, and in PMs.
If I may butt in, the crux of what she and I have been saying, and what it appears Tyche was also saying, is that you seem to have this habit of twisting peoples' words into something they didn't say, and then asking for clarification based on that twisted set of words rather than on the original set of words. As in, you are claiming Sandi said you were stupid, but she never said any such thing. And you often do it in a rude or insulting way that makes the other person angry or upset with you and then you wonder why it happened and claim it was all a misunderstanding.
24 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 68th comment:
When somebody says that you are misunderstanding something either because you're dumb or you're trolling, and you knock out one of the options, typically only the other remains.
As for this "twisting" business, when given something and I can only find one interpretation for it, I ask if that is what was meant. I am absolutely baffled at why there is so much hostility to the simple question: "is this what you meant?" (Interestingly enough, people are far more interested in bashing the asking of the question, than simply saying what it was they wanted to say!)
As for this "twisting" business, when given something and I can only find one interpretation for it, I ask if that is what was meant. I am absolutely baffled at why there is so much hostility to the simple question: "is this what you meant?" (Interestingly enough, people are far more interested in bashing the asking of the question, than simply saying what it was they wanted to say!)
24 Sep, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 69th comment:
David Haley said:
For instance, here you say that that was the crux of it, and yet you found it unnecessary to say what it was you actually were saying. You have repeated this pattern several times, in this thread, in others, and in PMs. …. Please, clarify what you were trying to say, because frankly I'm not sure, and I'd rather not make assumptions.
What I said was, "You're constantly putting words in the mouths of other people."
If that phrase is not familiar to you, if that's not "plain English", then I'm at a loss as English is the only language I know. I've cited ample examples, with details, and I'm not repeating myself just because you remain convinced that ignorance of what's been posted is a defense.
David Haley said:
When somebody says that you are misunderstanding something either because you're dumb or you're trolling, and you knock out one of the options, typically only the other remains.
Again, you suggested you were dumb, you suggested you were a troll, and yet, you're blaming others for it. Yes, you are "twisting people's words".
David Haley said:
I am absolutely baffled at why there is so much hostility to the simple question: "is this what you meant?"
Wrong again. The hostility is directed at your misrepresentation of other people. That "twisting business" you quickly glossed over. As long as you persist in rewriting reality so it appears you are a glowing prick of hallowed innocence at other's expense, folks are going to hate your guts.
25 Sep, 2009, Koron wrote in the 70th comment:
Quote
Dur dur dur
That's my impression of this page.
You guys don't speak the same English. Accept it and move on.
25 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 71st comment:
Koron said:
You guys don't speak the same English. Accept it and move on.
That wouldn't be as hard as you make it sound if he'd stop twisting other peoples' words to fit whatever it is he's trying to make them fit.
25 Sep, 2009, Dean wrote in the 72nd comment:
This is a triangle hole.
This is a circle.
They just don't fit. :thinking:
This is a circle.
They just don't fit. :thinking:
25 Sep, 2009, Grumny wrote in the 73rd comment:
I thought it was a "sqare peg" in a "round hole".
Have I been in Japan too long? Have things changed that much? :sad:
(Don't read the wrong way, I'm actually worried about my English going they way of the Dodo. :tongue:
Have I been in Japan too long? Have things changed that much? :sad:
(Don't read the wrong way, I'm actually worried about my English going they way of the Dodo. :tongue:
25 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 74th comment:
Life would be oh-so-much easier if people would actually say what they meant, especially when asked what they meant. :sad:
I don't understand how people find it so much more productive to harp on the miscommunication, when it would be so very simple to just say what was meant to be said and/or understood (when asked exactly such) and just move on already.
It's as if people aren't interested in actual conversation. I really don't understand this. It's as if people want to complain about something, but aren't interested in talking about whatever miscommunication there might or might not have been.
Well, I guess at least one thing has been cleared up. I guess it's nice that you finally made at least this much clear. :rolleyes:
I don't understand how people find it so much more productive to harp on the miscommunication, when it would be so very simple to just say what was meant to be said and/or understood (when asked exactly such) and just move on already.
It's as if people aren't interested in actual conversation. I really don't understand this. It's as if people want to complain about something, but aren't interested in talking about whatever miscommunication there might or might not have been.
Sandi said:
folks are going to hate your guts.
Well, I guess at least one thing has been cleared up. I guess it's nice that you finally made at least this much clear. :rolleyes:
25 Sep, 2009, Dean wrote in the 75th comment:
Grumny said:
I thought it was a "sqare peg" in a "round hole".
Have I been in Japan too long? Have things changed that much? :sad:
(Don't read the wrong way, I'm actually worried about my English going they way of the Dodo. :tongue:
Have I been in Japan too long? Have things changed that much? :sad:
(Don't read the wrong way, I'm actually worried about my English going they way of the Dodo. :tongue:
Yes, it is square peg in a round hole, but I think you'll find my example works. :lol:
25 Sep, 2009, Guest wrote in the 76th comment:
David Haley said:
Life would be oh-so-much easier if people would actually say what they meant
They did.
Quote
especially when asked what they meant. :sad:
They did. Except in between you assumed meaning that wasn't stated, rather than just leaving it at a mere "WTF?" instead. This is what's leading to the problem and what we've tried to explain to you, and either you don't see it or you refuse to acknowledge it.
Quote
It's as if people aren't interested in actual conversation.
Except how they are. Maybe you've not noticed, but this derailment didn't happen until you "misunderstood" and then asked for "clarification" in a way which made absolutely no sense given what had been said.
Quote
Well, I guess at least one thing has been cleared up. I guess it's nice that you finally made at least this much clear. :rolleyes:
Sandi said:
folks are going to hate your guts.
Well, I guess at least one thing has been cleared up. I guess it's nice that you finally made at least this much clear. :rolleyes:
And here you go, did it again. Only that appears as though you're deliberately quoting her out of context to make your point. Which you've chastised others for in the past. Double standard much?
25 Sep, 2009, Grumny wrote in the 77th comment:
Thanks, Dean. Yes, the example does work just as well. I was just suffering one of my frequent attacks of, "OMG I'm turning Japanese!" It's my wife's fault you see, she tells me that all the time. Anyway, forgive my blatant attempt to derail this thread even further.
I teach communication for a living, not that I'm any good at my job mind you, but I think some people are not understanding what communication is. So I highly recommend that someone much wittier than I make a harmless joke and help me in this derailment. :lol:
(Please forgive the typoes in my first post. I'm not yet proficient at the forum software and I messed up my first edit attempt.)
(edited by adding an apostrophe and two words to the first paragraph)
I teach communication for a living, not that I'm any good at my job mind you, but I think some people are not understanding what communication is. So I highly recommend that someone much wittier than I make a harmless joke and help me in this derailment. :lol:
(Please forgive the typoes in my first post. I'm not yet proficient at the forum software and I messed up my first edit attempt.)
(edited by adding an apostrophe and two words to the first paragraph)
25 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 78th comment:
David Haley said:
Life would be oh-so-much easier if people would actually say what they meant, especially when asked what they meant.
That doesn't make much sense… what is it that you're trying to say? Are you saying that MudBytes posters are illiterate morons with the communication skills of a lemon and the social grace of a mating dung beetle?
25 Sep, 2009, Mabus wrote in the 79th comment:
Grumny said:
So I highly recommend that someone much wittier than I make a harmless joke and help me in this derailment. :lol:
Maybe this will help:
YouTube - Vapors, Turning Japanese
25 Sep, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 80th comment:
Samson, Sandi. I'ma roll up my sleeves and step in here if you
two don't knock off the bullying of DH. That's no bluff. Get
your shit squared away, please.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
two don't knock off the bullying of DH. That's no bluff. Get
your shit squared away, please.
-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
Random Picks
Thinking about this, I have to throw in another twist. While it would seem that the 'best' game would be produced by the whole team contributing great ideas, the truth is the that biggest, longest running games seem to be bastions of mediocrity. I'm sure KaVir would protest if I suggested GodWars was "better" than GWII, but look at the figures. For all its flaws, GW is immensely popular.
I'm starting to think we need to redefine our target.