User talk:Skull Face

Clanbox Template

I guess, you have already seen my attempt to fix it. At least it looks like the old one, now. Can you tell me what's wrong (i.e. what the ifec-things were doing)? That'd be nice.--{ Alien Pirate Demon } ^{Talk! | Juice!} 12:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Funk defino. I've had a go, JC has had a go, even Simon has had a go. Next step is to create a new test template and do a cut-and-paste of the clanbox from the UD wiki. --Skull Face 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if nobody can fix it, then might it be time to just make a new clanbox? There aren't be too many group pages to fix... – Wulla ^(talk) 02:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Whether I like Elegost's suggestion or not has nothing to do with this.

Don't try to distort the reality to make me look like the "bad guy".

I said what I said because you were behaving improperly.

You are right when you say that Elegost made personal attacks against you, but all this wouldn't have happened had you been more polite.

You claim your comment was meant in a humorous way, though I fail to see how "your idea is teh suck" can be funny.

I also doubt you would've liked it if someone said that about one of your suggestions.

Anyway, it looks like I'm just repeating what Black Joe already wrote. 0000FF Beard 09:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm distorting nothing. My comments were in no way abusive and did not merit the response I've received so far. I'd love it if people would engage more on these suggestions in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, my own included. It is plain that you hold me to different standards than Elegost - you seek to excuse his actions whilst (metaphorically) condemning mine in the same breath. IMO such double standards serve only to devalue anything you might bring to the discussion. --Skull Face 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to go on believing your own version of the story, you can do so.

I won't go on discussing this with you, because this leads to nowhere anyway.

But next time you make a mean comment, I'll report it to a moderator.

You don't want to correct yourself, so others must do it for you.

Bye bye. 0000FF Beard 08:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, did you report Elegost to a moderator? Did you even post a single comment on his user page as you have done on mine? No, you did not. As I said before, you have double standards. --Skull Face 12:24, 22 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)

I initiated no such conflict - there's a fundamental difference between a personal attack and criticism of an idea - anyone who cannot emotionally separate the two should reconsider the wisdom of posting in an open wiki where suggestions are open to criticism. When I am attacked personally I will defend myself to the fullest. I defend myself vs a personal attack and you accuse me of 'pointing the finger'? Frankly that is BS. There's a difference between my actions and Elegost's actions - it may be subtle but to me it's important. If Elegost was offended by my saying 'this idea sucks' he should have said so. If he felt it was inappropriate he should have said so. There was nothing mean-spirited intended - I would have explained myself and apologised - I am conscious of the fact that my sense of humour may not necessarily be shared by others and I do try to reign it in. I was greeted by the statements above which go just a wee bit beyond comments on the relative merits of a game suggestion. IMO the suggestion sucked. I said so. And I didn't say so in isolation, I gave an example of why it sucked, an example which may have contributed towards the suggestion being reworked. That's a functional definition of criticism.

I don't need trite comments regards appropriate behaviour, I have a good grasp of the dynamics of debate and interaction. I can already see the picking and choosing of the points to address, ignoring those that don't fit the argument. I can do that too if needs be. The actions of yourself and 0000FF Beard simply make me dig my heels in more. You probably don't see how these actions look from my POV and even if you do I doubt that you care. If you genuinely wanted to act as a conciliatory party and have this matter resolved amicable you would do well to take a more neutral stance and consider the responses so far ;)

And a last word of advice to all who might be reading this. Management 101 - opening your arguments with "you're not very nice" is a sure-fire way to alienate the person whom you address and thus invalidate any points you might otherwise make. --Skull Face 23:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather expected this response, honestly. Ah well. I've put in my two cents. If you choose not to listen to the rest of the community, I can't and won't force you. Enjoy your Shartak experience.--Black Joe 03:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to 0000FF Beard. Thanks for prejudging me. Have a nice day. --Skull Face 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

An Apology

Hmmmm, well, yeah. You do have a point. I'm sorry for being not-so serious about the suggestion and i'd be more than happy to edit it myself into a more formal suggestion. You have shown me a thing i didn't know about.

I didn't know natives attacking other natives doesn't give half xp.

It would change part of my suggestion. But on your views on my suggestion, I don't see things that way because, i promote peace. So you have seen something i didn't see when i was thinking of my suggestion. That's very nice of you, but i would have preferred to hear something in a more friendly less stuck-up-know-it-all way. So yeah, i'll try my best to improve on being a know-it-all.
So yeah. I really don't care what you think about me, cause honestly, i don't, you're simply not important enough to me. But still, i'm sorry for hurting your feelings, that was very not nice of me. i'll revise my suggestion in the morning if it helps you sleep better. its late evening here right now. good day -Elegost 14:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Etherdrifter

So you've been killing us off one by one eh? Claim I've fled and am a cheat? Well I must say I am quite insulted by this. 5 votes were held, we won all of them fairly. Violence? Since when did I issue such an edict? Against exorcists yes mostly to encourage spirits to return to the village. Against anyone else? Well I do have a private contract out on Um Bongo for crimes against humanity and of course the murder of myself but I think that about covers it. The rest is retaliation for attacks or the free will of other people which is beyond even my control. My absence, I was seeking ruins that we may find a new home as per Ezikiels suggestion to see if it is possible to so without a massive logistical problem. Cthulhu is currently acting diplomat of the guild and a ceasefire has been called. Any violent actions of guild members are their own and no longer the guilds. However should ziggy kill a guild member they probably requested it, I personally think she is reforming rather well and usually only kills people who try to kill her. Now then instead of looking for a new home I am forced to come and deal with this. Makes you wonder if it was all worth it really. Ah and one final thing, what the spirits do is their own business. Exorcism will continue to be our enemy and I think it prudent to consider who offers the village more. We who provide it with knowledge and power or those who are out only for their own gain with no regard for others.

Now then enough of my indignation, state your terms for peace and we can barter. You know as well as I do there could be war and its a coin toss as to who would win but a certainty that the village would lose. But if there is peace then both parties can benefit and there is no loss, only gain. All we seek to do is practise out arts in peace and gain a greater understanding of the magic of the isles, tell me what is it you seek and ask yourself would you be willing to offer it in my position?--Etherdrifter 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just going to add some comments here. There are other ways to encourage spirits to return Ether. I have ideas as to how to do this and they will work. Also, as stated elsewhere, the Guild shouldn't have to move and I will do my all to ensure that. We cease all hostilities against other Shaman and this will suffice for peace. --Cthulhu 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your clan has murdered innocents, you refuse to accept responsibility. There will be no barter. Posturing is not acceptance. The blood feud continues. --Skull Face 12:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus you prove my point--Etherdrifter 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)