@P-51
1) "You denied being both an illiterate person and a sarcastic asshole."
I said:
Omega wrote:...So, I locked it, with a reply that said:
Omega wrote:Blame the community if you don't like the outcome of the vote on tributes. Oh, and request granted, because the Tribute Screen is still there.
It's short and to the point, although all the points it hits on are things that you apparently missed. The second sentence is a sarcastic quip, but a well deserved one--you weren't even careful enough to actually request what you wanted in your request for it. If pointing out your inability to actually request what you thought you were requesting makes me an asshole, then so be it.
Somehow, I don't think the statement "If...makes me an asshole, then so be it" is a denial. It's pretty pointless to actively deny a subjective label like "asshole", et cetera, but it can be enlightening to probe the underlying reasons for the application of that term and see if they correctly apply, blah blah blah.
2) "Obviously you are not illiterate so clearly you are a sarcastic asshole."
Well, in that case, you're either a moron arguing with no reasonable grounds who should be pointed to and laughed at, or an idiot who shouldn't have any attention payed to him. Which is it? Keep in mind we're going to pretend that false dichotomies don't exist, so you surely MUST be one or the other--oh and yes, this is sarcasm since I don't feel like writing any kind of lengthy post, so I'm condensing 2-3 paragraphs of "you're a retard for saying this" into 3 sentences of demonstrating how retarded it actually is.
3) "There was no reason for you to say something along the lines of "you got what you requested because it is already there". Being the admin you should obviously know we no longer have the ability to tribute but the screen where we formerly could tribute is still available."
I've already stated why I said exactly what I said, on at least two occasions in this thread, so "there was no reason..." falls flat. The second sentence, does it even serve a point? We both know I know that and so does everyone else with even half a clue, and we've both stated it several times.
4) "How could you ever assume somebody would be stupid enough to request something that is already there. And like I showed you before many of us had other comments that hinted at the fact we wanted the ability to tribute players back. Nothing could have made you think something like that other then the fact that you were trying to be a sarcastic asshole and wanted nothing to do with our request."
I like how you're ignoring chunks of our actual conversation to hit on something here. First off, I'll just say that there are an ample supply of people who request things that are already there, or request things that have zero idea what they're talking about, especially memorable ones would be a way to prevent nuclear missiles from killing your wonders, and the re-inclusion of citizens to the game. Now on to the rest of it...
Your "showing" was pretty much a failure. I did a more detailed analysis in one of my posts. Here it is for you. Try not being so biased and accept the fact your communication was imprecise.
From viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2555
You start with...
"Topic: I would like to formally request
Post: A tribute screen. ..."
Nicoly chimes in with "I too wish for the Tribute screen back", and later in his posts says "...rather than getting rid of the total tribute screen."
Jushe chimes in with "...And a Tribute Screen would be nice again"
HK47 chimes in with "Yeah teh trib screen would be an absolutely astounding deature. To uh, put back into the game."
White Fang weighs in with "yeah getting trib screen back would be nice"
You weigh in again with "I would tend to agree the tribute screen is a most useful feature and wish to have it reinstated."
Every single post on that thread, except your second one where you claim without any evidence to indicate anything one way or the other, that no one cares enough to glitch anymore (assuming that they could still glitch units, I suppose...), and my post, people don't realize that they're not requesting what they think they are. Reading the entire posts looks even less flattering for your case, as there is only one indication that you meant the ability to tribute, from you, in the original post.
We've also been over the same thing a few other times. The last one was when you were insisting you/people in that thread communicated very clearly so that no one could have misunderstood, and I said to actually look at that thread from the perspective of someone who hasn't ever played EE and doesn't know anything about it and they'd obviously conclude you wanted the tribute screen back. The exact same goes for someone who's played EE and simply hasn't played recently or kept up with current events. Only someone with current knowledge, and the ability to INFER your actual intended meaning can conclude you want to be able to tribute again, and don't actually want the tribute screen back because it's still there. I really don't want to have to address this issue yet again, because it's been done so many times.
5) "Even if you continue to claim that you didn't know what we were talking about, you can't have a tribute screen without the ability to tribute. So we cannot have a tribute screen until we are given the ability to tribute which we obviously do not have yet. So no matter which way you look at it, you were being a sarcastic asshole and ignoring our request for whatever reasons you may have had."
I've stated plainly that I knew exactly what you intended to request. I've stated it at least a dozen times. How the fuck have you missed it again and again, even though you've responded directly to it in some cases? One specific case would be the first part of my reply to you, where I quoted myself. For anyone to understand that, they MUST be capable of realizing that it follows from the last sentence especially, that I knew exactly what you were asking. Oh, and I believe you said about that specific quote, "I understand him fine".
We've already covered the false dichotomy thing in this post, and I gave some strong hints at it before that honestly should have been picked up on. We've also covered the multitude of reasons I had in great detail, so it seems a bit strange you say "whatever reasons you may have had" as if you do not know.
As for 'it cant be the trib screen without tribs', I suggest you inform all of the players who call it the tribute screen that they cannot do so, and must find a new term to describe it. This line of argument is not only pedantic, but pretty much ignores the usage of language, the way languages evolve, and the fact that language breaks when you try and push it too far.
6) "Also you did not present the option that you could report cheaters via screenshots in the vote so many people could have assumed that getting rid of tributes was the only way to eliminate cheaters. They may be either unaware that they can do this or just not know how so they could not consider any other options."
You are entirely correct. We didn't mention what should be to obvious to all people who have used the lobby for any significant amount of time and who have a brain, or what new users, what few we get, could easily find out *before* voting. There certainly may be, and perhaps even are, users who didn't know they could report cheaters.
We also did not mention that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, and thus, don't magically mind-control cheaters into cheating. Therefore, there may be, and perhaps even are, users who didn't know this and supported the change because they felt bad at these unwitting people being mind controlled and then banned from a game they loved!
To be serious, every poll on an issue has to assume people have some basic level of knowledge of the issue involved. We did that, and we even did our best to ensure people had this level of knowledge by referring them to the forums for the topic(s) on it. The only things we explicitly mentioned in the poll (specifically, before it), were to correct outright lies about facts that a lot of retards were spreading. We didn't even correct all of them, just the three that seemed most prevalent.
7) "I think we should at least do this and have another vote on bring the tributes back because taking away a part of the game like this is ridiculous and unnecessary."
We know that's what you think. The community disagrees. It's been stated more than a few times now, something else you keep repeatedly missing I suppose, that we most certainly will do another poll if it seems that a fair amount of the community has changed their opinion on the issue, etc., etc., etc., *insert all the stuff I mentioned the other times I've stated this yourself, here (actually, just go back and read...)*.
8) "Don't argue with idiots. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." (no, I'm not quoting P-51 here)
While I'm convinced that isn't necessarily true, it certainly has a lot of truth to it. This exchange has gone on long enough so that anyone reading it curiously can see what both 'sides' are saying and make up their own mind. We're at the point now where it's transparent you're either not paying a lot of attention to the argument, or are intentionally or unknowingly mischaracterizing what's been said to make it seem like your statements have more weight than they actually do, and once you get through that all you have is statements about what you think, presented without support, and a 'what if' that for lack of a better word is misguided. At that point, it's evident there's no convincing you, and as anyone who can be convinced already has been one way or the other, don't expect any more lengthy replies.