User talk:Skull Face
Comment From Marvin
You're not very nice :P--Marvin 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you say that Marvin? Skull Face 13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- A number of factors--Marvin 10:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Abuse, And Rebuttal Of Same
First off, i agree with Marvin. You're not very nice. :)
Second, i wasn't spamming. Its a legitimate suggestion. Everyone is free to make a suggestion sicko. If you have nothing to help build the suggestion up or make it better, or at least help it balance; you could just say i don't like it at all instead of going all noble and self-righteous about things.
And i guess you don't read properly do you? you should go back to school and learn how to read effectively and efficiently.
in case you didn't comprhend, i'll restate it for you. I suggested that in order to at least have a shot at non-violent means of gaining xp and a better rp-ing experience for those who like being healers of anyone and everyone. and it could improve island relations. If you have nothing else to say, please, do shut up a little on the negative comments? This isn't the forum you know, we have a forum for insulting and making others feel bad in case you didn't know that by now. There are loads of people to insult there, including yourself. Go and make your impudent sarcasm there, not here. -Elegost 03:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Learn the distinction between criticism of an idea and criticism of a person. It is not me who needs to go back to school. My comments regards your suggestion were not aimed at you personally and they were written in the same tongue-in-cheek tone that you used in the actual suggestion. Your comments above are abusive on a personal level. If there is a wiki moderator I will be bringing your comments to his/her attention.
- Furthermore, if my comments were of no worth, why did you then change your suggestion to try and address those flaws I noted? Put plainly, my criticism was spot-on and you didn't like it. Here's a few more criticisms:
- Shartak is a game of conflict - the game is predicated on conflict between natives and outsiders and that conflict has, so far, been successful in establishing the consensual reality. Warriors/soldiers (and pirates) are combat classes and they make up a huge proportion of the active characters. Also note that every character has access to 5 combat-oriented skills (9 if you count the Tracking tree for manhunting and another 2 for warriors/soldiers) versus 2 healing-oriented skills (3 for scientists). The suggestion of doubling the XP for healing others is nothing more than a flawed attempt to engineer some of that conflict out of the game.
- A native attacking a native does not gain half XP. Attacking people from your home camp gives half XP. There's a significant difference ;)
- The suggestion would serve to increase rewards for XP farming via stab-and-heal actions, contradicting your 'better RP-ing experience' argument. These are already a source of friction, the suggestion would play in their favour.
- At time of writing, scientists cannot see the HP totals of natives. Nice try but no cigar.
- Why should an outsider healing a native gain more XP than an outsider healing an outsider victim of a native attack? Flawed logic.
- The suggestion was rubbish and that's why I criticised it. At that time I intended no criticism of the person. Now I do. You are abusive, apparently illiterate and apparently incapable of logical reasoning. Whilst your posts / arguments have a (very) small degree of entertainment value, please do not post any further personal attacks of this nature on my pages. --Skull Face 22:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Elegost.
If you didn't like the idea, you could've simply said so.
There was no need to be so harsh. 0000FF Beard 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- My comments regards the idea were not harsh, they were absolutely to the point and they were made with humour in mind, echoing the non-serious tone of the actual suggestion. If you think Elegost's suggestion has merit then support it in the suggestions thread, don't back him in his attempts to try and shout down the opposition. At the time of my writing this you haven't supported the suggestion which rather implies that you too think the suggestion is rubbish. It is also interesting that you choose to criticise me yet you have said nothing about the personal attacks made in Elegost's statement above. You seem to have double standards 0000FF Beard... prove me wrong? --Skull Face 22:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Marvin...and Elegost...and 0000FF Beard. Even before I saw these comments, I nearly posted a response to your rather inappropriate comments on Elegost's post. While I agree with you that Elegost was out of line in his response, that does not excuse your behavior. You initiated the conflict. Whether you meant it in an abusive manner or not, your comments DID come across as caustic and mean-spirited. I'm not going to bother discussing the merits of your and Elegost's accusations, since I find both distasteful. You were both at fault to some degree. However, I find it interesting that you refuse to concede any fault, even when someone else uninvolved in the conflict (0000FF Beard) tells you that your behavior is a problem. You have a lot to contribute to the community, Skull Face, but your actions in this matter have made me lose a lot of respect for you. When at fault, the proper thing to do is apologize, not point fingers back at the other party. You answer for YOUR behavior, and Elegost answers for his.
That being said, I do think Elegost owes you an apology as well. While Elegost is a friend, his comments were abusive, too. I won't repost this for Elegost, as I expect he'll read my comments here. Elegost, Skull Face, the ball is in your court. --Black Joe 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
