I agree, there are. I’ve read several complaints about this game and my first thought is “sounds like this game isn’t for you”, especially when you read their list of complaints and it’s literally every single core aspect of the game. Could possibly be the case here, I can’t say for sure.
I will say, for anyone who doesn’t like the loop for gearing in this game will be greatly disappointed in similar games, especially the successor.
That is a good strategy. Others do not do the same.
There was a case on this forum where Mattelot claimed the same thing before and even after the MVP Leviathan provided a screenshot that documented that not only did Mattelot read the supposed “hidden reply” but also that Mattelot edited a prior post made ~9 months earlier in response to that old post being quoted in the “hidden reply”. Mattelot apparently forgot that edited posts have a pencil icon and time stamp. Even after the MVP provided the screenshot, Mattelot continued to deny reading the “hidden reply” and the fact of the edit time stamp of his old post, despite what everyone could see for themselves with the MVP’s screenshot.
https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=https%3a%2f%2fus.forums.blizzard.com%2fen%2fd3%2ft%2fd3-forum-translation%2f60504%3fpage%3d4&d=4827178543703451&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=v2TxpCennyaTJeN1R-fSHe0MJn61Pmsy
https://postimg.cc/XrSVbskX
If my truth is better than yours.
Then you just have to accept it.
Because “belief is not a truth”.
In which case, it’s perfectly valid to criticise it.
It’s hilarious you’d trot that one out, as you used precisely that tactic in previous threads against me.
You totally missed the entire context of what I said. A simple “Oh, my bad” would have sufficed.
You really need to let things go.
I’ll tell you what, if you stop making up things I never said, just so you can argue against the things I never said, rather than responding to the things I actually said, then I’ll stop bringing up the fact that you keep making things up that I never said just to argue against them. Deal?
So you deliberately took my statement out of context because you’re holding some kind of weird grudge about something you did from a long time ago?
You do you, pal.
He is referring to comments that he proved that he never made where he has stated the opposite over and over again. To give just one example of many:
So you agree that your 100% statement was a load of bull then?
That’s what he does, he’s by far the most dishonest poster on this forum. Others might be trolling, but this dude seem to actually buy his own BS.
What you have shown me is that you can’t mentally process the line between “kids being kids” and genuine evil. Someone can blow away dozens of people with a shotgun and you’ll likely stick to “they don’t know what they’re doing.” Unsurprising, though, given your viewpoints and values. This is a subject where we just have to agree to disagree.
Also not surprised that you do not see the difference here. I will explain for you, because that’s just what I do.
In an ideal world, laws wouldn’t be comically absurd, and state-sanctioned cruelty will come in response to actual wrongdoings. Like with Seligman’s dogs, you combine the neutral stimulus of “committing crime” with the negative stimulus of being tortured. You help people connect not being morally good with unbearable pain.
Now, based on that, you’ll realize that the girl learns nothing of value, not because there are inherent issues with cruelty, but because she didn’t do anything wrong in the first place. All she did was to love and trust, and those normal productive things are the ones that she might start associating with pain. That’s a lesson with negative value.
Ever heard of figurative language? Ever heard of hyperbole? Ever heard of rounding up 98% or 99% to 100%? Arguing semantics when you know exactly what I’m talking about just proves that you have no actual argument lol.
I have seen you Mattelot use your alts “Forums” and “Stenbjorn” to like repeatedly your own posts. Since you use sock puppets, I wonder if that is the reason why you frequently and inaccurately project that the forum has a sock puppet problem.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/paragon-cap-sucks/61877/116
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/demonic-clowns-yah-you-heard-me/61853/74
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/cheaters-on-the-leaderboards/61971/63
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/would-this-be-a-solution-to-the-small-stash-space-problem/50345/114
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/i-dont-care-for-the-ancient-legendary/63312/128
Tell-tale signs are your zero post accounts with hidden profiles that are used to cover up the list of likes given (since it is primarily to your main account Mattelot)
This is a link to Stenbjorn posting on Blizzard’s Diablo:Immortal Forum.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/diablo-immortal/t/permanent-ban-wo-explanation/403/35
Edit: Mattelot does not deny that these are his sock puppet accounts.
Hardly. If you can’t make a factual argument, don’t make an argument.
Ah. “Be absolutely literal or don’t debate” is certainly one of the beliefs of all time. Reminds me of my little brother. He’s autistic. I had to write all his college essays for that little bugger just last fall.
I work 50 hours a week. Maybe if this thread is still around by Saturday, you could sum it up for me in a TL;DR and I’ll catch up on it. As is, I’m not exactly invested at the moment.
Also you’re not really, like, anything to me. Real talk. You and I probably don’t know each other IRL, you mean next to nothing to me. If I could, I’d throw your anonymous D3 profile’s “internet cred” under two buses if it meant I was safer IRL.
If I hadn’t said anything in this thread, do you think we’d have a hundred posts bickering over words that allegedly aren’t harmful?
Real cool, bro. Throw around criticism of other people discussing what you brought up but can’t take that same criticism in return.
Okay, you do you man, You do you. Damn Hypocrite.
Edit:
Additionally, I wouldn’t have been even involved in this frickin’ thread except your “innocuous statement” brought out the ravings of a deranged jaded teacher that thinks humanity is doomed because kids can be cruel.
That’s what I was responding to.
And anyway, if you don’t want people responding to posts you make, maybe don’t make posts. It’s just wrong to say something and then be “surprised” it resulted in a conversation, debate, or argument or however else you want to put it.
Forums do that, but apparently you can’t stomach a conversation you frickin’ started.
Edit #2:
But since you asked for a TLDR. This is what happened…
You said, “Words hurt worse that physical violence.”
Other people denied that fact.
I supported your argument with facts with examples like propaganda, something you didn’t do by just dropping the original comment and disappearing so you would come back and marvel at the discussion that took place.
Mingled in there was some nutty teacher who posted all kinds of nonsense about humanity being doomed because kids are cruel and what kids do when they’re kids is a guarantee of what kind of people they’ll be when they grow up.
That’s where you come back in conflating two different arguments because you couldn’t be bothered to read any of the comments but decided that because your keen observant eye skimmed the word “fascism” in one post to the deranged jaded teacher who thinks fascism is great idea, that you just couldn’t see the connection.
In other words, if you had read instead of picking out one word in a sea of posts and conflated two different arguments into one, maybe you wouldn’t have gone all “Someone brought up Godwin’s Law, they automatically lose.”
Yeah, certainly when you use hard numbers. If you don’t know, don’t use specifics.
Such hard numbers KEKW. Definitely not just me laying down some basic logic. This is definitely the part where I attempt to refer to a 50 page FBI report/article by saying “whatever it currently is”. What a man you are.
You laid down something, but it definitely wasn’t logic.
You’re too jaded to actually use logic.
You’re right. In an ideal world, cruelty wouldn’t be necessary. But it also isn’t necessary in the world we do live in. If you admit the girl didn’t learn anything of use from the cruelty she experienced, then it’s a given that the whoever else is exposed to cruelty wouldn’t learn anything of use either.
What actually happens in the real world is cruelty is cruelty. No matter who is exposed to it, it doesn’t actually change behavior except in psychologically damaging ways.
Going into an argument with “some cruelty is necessary” is just wrong headed. And again, fear of cruelty doesn’t stop crime. All cruelty does is hurt people that’s exposed to it and in turn breeds more cruelty.
Now, if you actually believe that cruelty is good, then it’s you that’s no different than this boy that used cruelty against this girl.
Edit:
If I take your argument to the extreme and continue using this girl and boy as an example…
If some people deserve cruelty, maybe I could argue that this girl deserved what she got, the positive lesson she could have learned is not to have underaged sex. I could then argue that the boy being cruel was a good thing because this girl then becomes an example to other girls not to be foolish enough to think underaged sex has no repercussions.
I wouldn’t argue that of course, because I’m not a psychopath and don’t believe cruelty in any form is a good thing.