Jul 18, 2016, 2:44 PM
@Coin I have a youthful zest for life that refuses to fade, don't fucking judge me.
Making a MU* of your own
-
@Coin I have a youthful zest for life that refuses to fade, don't fucking judge me.
-
@Coin
Ok close but not the same, Burglary, and Possession of stolen good so similar.
Mine was based on the Denis Leary character from the movie The Ref. -
@Kanye-Qwest said in Making a MU* of your own:
@Coin I have a youthful zest for life that refuses to fade, don't fucking judge me.
I don't judge your youthful zest or refusal to fade; just your lack of chronological acknowledgment when it comes to cartoon shows.
It's okay. Really. I still sort of like you sometimes!
-
@Kanye-Qwest The Powerpuff Girls were terrible. Let me guess: you actually like My Little Pony now?
-
@Swaggot said in Making a MU* of your own:
@Kanye-Qwest The Powerpuff Girls were terrible. Let me guess: you actually like My Little Pony now?
Having never watch MLP, I can't comment; but Powerpuff Girls was great.
Was there some emnity between E3 and PPG fandoms? Because if so, and I was so blissfully unaware until today, and fuck the both of you for bringing it to my attention.
-
@Swaggot said in Making a MU* of your own:
@surreality I hope you realize that the majority of your post is declaring something uninteresting,
No, Rick. I'm sorry that you still seem to be failing at reading comprehension, but no.
"I don't like those concepts." --> valid opinion
I don't give an opinion about whether I like any of those concepts or not. Anywhere.
"Disagreeing with me about what is and is not interesting is 'ridiculously delusional stupidity'." --> ridiculously delusional stupidity
Which might make some sense if... no, actually, there's almost no way that could make sense, so I'm not going to even try to get through your skull.
Let's look at your first objection more closely:
Is this stupid and hopelessly pedantic? Sure. Wanting to use a verb for a name doesn't make somebody more interesting in any way, though, so failure to defend a ridiculous assertion #1.
What is and is not interesting is subjective. Are you deliberately being a cunt, or are you just clinically retarded? This is of non-exclusive or, so you can be both.
I am always a cunt.
But if you think a verb in place of a noun is inherently more interesting, my gods, man... you're aiming pretty low for 'interesting'.(I see how you focus on that rather than the first point, too, which is, "Wow, that's an incredibly stupid rule to have." We'll just overlook that for now and carry on!)
Either of these conditions can be corrected, but the first step in solving any problem is admitting that you have one.
<pat pat> Dear Pot, go find yourself a kettle, this teacup finds you tiresome and unintelligent.
Onto your second:
You're going to have to clarify here
No, I'm not.
Yeah, you kinda are, because you aren't, it seems, telling the whole story. And people who don't tell the whole story are usually trying to hide something that would prove their ranting claims invalid.
The fact that they changed the rules mid-game and acted like I was the one at fault is, in itself, their issue, not mine.
If you didn't keep current on the rules and this was made clear? Yeah, it is your fault. No staff worth its salt is going to say, "Well, we've since banned X, but we'll change that back just so you can have it." Because you're asking for something you're not supposed to have at that point, which makes you an entitled little shit.
No further explanation is needed.
Yes, it really was, as it did sorta prove the point.
Just because you want us to ignore it so you can support a claim of horrible wrongs done to you because you're just that interesting doesn't mean anyone with a single lick of sense actually will.Is your reading comprehension this low that you didn't notice this detail, are you too dumb to understand this fact, or are you deliberately ignoring it in the interest of screeching at me over the Internet?
I love it so much when you ascribe some crazy shrieking tone to me like I'm flailing wildly, screaming at the monitor, and railing at cruel, bitter fate that the guy whose lifelong dream to play EE&E has been crushed has so deeply wounded me.
Again, dear Pot: the teacup finds you in dire need of a mirror. (Or maybe a good therapist to explain 'projection' to you.)
Your third:
It's pretty common.
I've seen maybe one other person do this and I've played Werewolf for a while so, I think you're exaggerating just a wee bit.
And I was werestaff for the better part of a year, played in the spheres online for ages, ran the sphere in a couple of LARPs going back to the 90s. I think maybe, just maybe, I've seen more concepts come and go than you.
How about your last one:
OMG you're still going on about this? Really?
LIKE OMG I CAN'T EVEN is a line of thought that clinically retarded cunts use a lot.
...and it's my reading comprehension that's in question here? <squint> Again, loving all the stuff you ascribe to me! You make me so much more interesting than I actually am! May you live in interesting times, man.
But no, really, I just find it hilarious that you're on like... what, your third or fourth account now to keep fighting a battle over whether or not you were allowed to play a trio of cartoon characters on a pretendy fun time game like it's a serious struggle against oppression. This is like, wayyyyyyyyy beyond the definition of 'first world problem', for real. I would take a dude who got one too few shots of caramel in his Starbucks fluffacchino more seriously than I take this, and for the sake of everyone's mental health, you may want to consider doing the same.
Based on this, I'm leaning toward "both" after reading this. This is a non-argument and basically gives me license to ignore the rest of your post.
You ignored all of it already, save for what you wanted to seize upon to go psycho and persecution complex. Mostly, all the places I was calling you out on your evasions and bullshit. (Which you're now trying to do with more obvious baiting nonsense and ad hominem, because you still can't support your original point that 'people get denied for being too interesting', and on the whole that's sad and boring.)
No, dude. People get denied because they're not playing by the rules. If those rules are not posted? Yes, that is a problem, and they need to fix that problem by posting those rules, and doing so clearly. It doesn't, however, mean the denied party was denied for being too interesting, unless the actual rule is, "We don't want anything interesting on this game."
-
I have never seen an episode of the new MLP show. I doubt I ever will.
-
@surreality said in Making a MU* of your own:
If those rules are not posted? Yes, that is a problem, and they need to fix that problem by posting those rules, and doing so clearly.
I don't like unwritten rules, but I will tolerate a rejection on those grounds, especially if it's some weird corner case where staff might not actually have thought of it before. Worse than just having unwritten rules, though, is having unwritten rules and not being willing to say what they are.
If your unwritten rule is that characters can't have more than 3 skills over 50%, that's fine, and I will redo the character sheet to comply with that (and possibly suggest mentioning that in the chargen rules somewhere). But for God's sake don't deny an application for "having too many skills over 50%" without offering some guidance as to how many skills over 50% is an appropriate number.
-
@Autumn Exactly. People that don't make their expectations clear are very much a problem, and that's a problem they need to solve.
We had a corner case thing on BITN the other day. It's one of those 'people generally know to not do that and I've only ever heard of it even coming up once before in the history of wiki-having games' scenarios, but the moment it did come up, it was noted in policy within an hour on game and wiki. Staff was polite about it. The player was 100% cool about it and totally understood.
ZERO drama.
-
I have a question and I know this might get a whole can of worms started but I will ask it anyway.
Swaggy said that the changes asked were ones that "castrated the concepts" but one of the example used was the shadow name thing, yeah I agree that the not using a verb for a name thing is bizarre but how does that really change the concept? I mean yes names can tie into to and hint at deeper things but even without that if the name was the only objection change it grumble to yourself and play on. In that example neither the concept or the mechanical stats would be changed. -
Shit, he coulda just named the dude 'Exsanguinator' and called it a day.
-
@Phase-Face said in Making a MU* of your own:
Shit, he coulda just named the dude 'Exsanguinator' and called it a day.
Clearly not. It would have undermined the purity of his vision.
-
@ThatGuyThere And... exsanguination and exsanguinity and exsanguinator are nouns.
Edit: @Coin Indeed. Though if this is his definition of castration, he must get castrated an awful lot, and... shit, that explains a whole hell of a lot.
Edit edit: I think I found the real problem...
I wouldn't approve that, either.
-
Incidentally:
I know it's been asked plenty, but I can't help but add my voice to the chorus: @Swaggot, why /do/ you keep popping back up to do the same pointless shit(complaining about MCM and EE&E; calling people on this forum irrational liberal cunts because they disagree with you; unclever, sideways homosexual slurs; general 4channery) when A.) it seems to get you banned with the quickness and B.) nobody particularly cares about any of it as anything but momentary entertainment.
If you're going to keep sneaking into a moderately active forum dedicated to an already small hobby that is perpetually in a state of contraction, why not try being a constructive member? Do you just need the satisfaction of feeling as if you're rustling this forum's collective jimmies every month or so before you inevitably tilt into ban-worthy inappropriateness, or are you genuinely having a hard time figuring out how to behave in a way that won't put you at odds with the majority of the userbase?
EDIT: Obviously, calling people irrational liberal cunts in the Hog Pit would probably be fine. But this isn't there.
-
@Phase-Face said in Making a MU* of your own:
Incidentally:
I know it's been asked plenty, but I can't help but add my voice to the chorus: @Swaggot, why /do/ you keep popping back up to do the same pointless shit(complaining about MCM and EE&E; calling people on this forum irrational liberal cunts because they disagree with you; unclever, sideways homosexual slurs; general 4channery) when A.) it seems to get you banned with the quickness and B.) nobody particularly cares about any of it as anything but momentary entertainment.
If you're going to keep sneaking into a moderately active forum dedicated to an already small hobby that is perpetually in a state of contraction, why not try being a constructive member? Do you just need the satisfaction of feeling as if you're rustling this forum's collective jimmies every month or so before you inevitably tilt into ban-worthy inappropriateness, or are you genuinely having a hard time figuring out how to behave in a way that won't put you at odds with the majority of the userbase?
EDIT: Obviously, calling people irrational liberal cunts in the Hog Pit would probably be fine. But this isn't there.
Well, I didn't start the insults in this thread, surreality did. Why is calling me "ridiculously delusionally stupid" acceptable but not me, in turn, calling her a clinically retarded cunt? Why is the issue me when I insult back?
If she doesn't want to be treated like a cunt, she can refrain from personally attacking me. Otherwise, she gets what she deserves in this regard.
Incidentally, why is treating others like others treat me only unacceptable when I do it?
-
@Swaggot You said I was literally retarded before I said anything even vaguely insulting, so you don't get to hide behind that.
-
@Kanye-Qwest If you actually cared about insulting behavior, you would have given surreality hard time first, since she insulted first. The fact that you didn't makes you a hypocrite.
Literally anybody who defends this one-sided "analysis" is a cunt. Are you a cunt? The choice is yours.
-
@Swaggot If I was, how would you know? It's pretty clear you have no real life experience with cunts. I could literally answer any way, and you'd have no frame of reference.
So, yes. I am in fact the Omega Cunt.
-
@Kanye-Qwest >le virginity accusation maymay
So basically, you have no argument. Got it. So, anyway, back on topic. Do you have anything to contribute to the matter at hand (how to start your own MU*), or are you here to, in a massive display of irony, do exactly what you accuse me of doing?
-
@Swaggot I insulted your assertion that people were denying these concepts for being too interesting, not you.
Because that assertion is, apparently by consensus now, ridiculously stupid.
It does not take much analysis to come to that conclusion.
@Swaggot said in Making a MU* of your own:
Literally anybody who defends this one-sided "analysis" is a cunt. Are you a cunt? The choice is yours.
And there you go again, all adorable, thinking you can make up the rules for the world to follow. <pat pat>
Oh fucking well.