Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:26 pm
A bit of a claim, seeing as I seem to fit the so-called true Brikwarrior's textbook definition of "anti-fun." You're welcome to try, however.
HO HO HO
https://www.brikwars.com/forums/
Man, I want to agree with you on the merits of your position, but I also want to argue with you on the assiness of your expression of that position. If you can't handle complete strangers calling you a retard on purposefully flimsy justification, you need to switch your browser over to the OTHER internet (tits or GTFO, so to speak). So I'm going to write the rest of this like a Choose Your Own Adventure, depending on how much you're looking for a dimmy fight.Professor Fairfield wrote:You can bite my plastic yellow ass; I take that personally, and I am no retard. If you're such a pissant about doing the slightest degree of calculations or tactics, I'd say the bigger retard is you. Thinking men may have less fun, but don't call them retards.
ARGUMENT / AGREEMENT: Now hold on sir! I find your allegation completely unfair! In fact my opinion about WISG is very clearly spelled out in the section in which it's introduced. Or in the sidebar to that section, which is close enough:Professor Fairfield wrote:The rule I have much more of a problem with is the What-I-Say-Goes Roll. Mainly because, while the Rule of Fudge is designed to streamline the game, WISGRs can easily have the exact opposite effect, but still get associated therewith. Again, in his endless glaring bias, Mike only recognises jerky, cumbersome behavior as being constant reference to the rulebook; he's completely ignoring that anybody who wants to make a constant WISG role when the "less-important" rules give him a clear disadvantage is also being a jerk and holding up the game, and in fact, is an even bigger one.
Oh, but I always thought it was 'cause we were socially inept and screwed up individuals who can't stand each other... sooo, your saying that isn't the group identity then? I'm confused and disoriented, the world of Brikwars no longer makes sense to me. Does the group identity thing infer we actually like each other? *shivers*In-jokes are crucial to social group identity formation
Except that no; it isn't. The equivalent to that is saying "I don't like Brikwars because it has bricks in it." Obviously, that's not true. The reason I'm pissed is because I came here based on the lure of a Lego-centric game, and it pisses me off to see other people who play it throwing disses at me for how I want to play it. Granted, Brikwars by its very nature is easier to fudge, given that unlike, say, Dungeons and Dragons, it's already more physically manifested. You can see the soldiers, tanks, dragons, and evil volcano bases right there, so less mathematical calculations are required to figure it all out.Rayhawk wrote:ARGUMENT: Your argument is a little along the lines of "I don't like Checkers because it has checkers in it." If you don't like checkers, Checkers is probably not the right game for you. There are other games.
1:the idea of not likeing "checkers because it has checkers" in this term means "i don't like the game because of the rules" the game and the rules are the same, the part you like are the bricks.Professor Fairfield wrote:Except that no; it isn't. The equivalent to that is saying "I don't like Brikwars because it has bricks in it." Obviously, that's not true. The reason I'm pissed is because I came here based on the lure of a Lego-centric game, and it pisses me off to see other people who play it throwing disses at me for how I want to play it. Granted, Brikwars by its very nature is easier to fudge, given that unlike, say, Dungeons and Dragons, it's already more physically manifested. You can see the soldiers, tanks, dragons, and evil volcano bases right there, so less mathematical calculations are required to figure it all out.Rayhawk wrote:ARGUMENT: Your argument is a little along the lines of "I don't like Checkers because it has checkers in it." If you don't like checkers, Checkers is probably not the right game for you. There are other games.
Then again, though, that's not why I have a problem. Even WISGRs aren't why. It's because you're calling me a retard. It doesn't matter if it's as a joke. Enough people have done it to me in all seriousness that I detest being called a retard, and I do not belive that humor requires blatant use of untruths and insults. Really, Mike, I would be lying if I said I didn't find your sense of humor great 99% of the time. I laugh my ass off at your manuals, when I'm not shaking my head, but most of the time I'm not shaking my head. The whole concept of Brikwars is funny. Now that you're actually going and arguing with yourself, though, it's a new low for you. Humor needs something left to stand on so it's clear what it's making fun of, that's why I prefer satire, the brand of humor that embraces reality so it can turn around and beat the fuck out of it, over this illogical, stoner-centric, Williamstreet bullshit.
I'm not here for that. I don't give a fuck if I don't fit the average profile of a Brikwarrior. I came here for the title concept at its bare bones, and that's it. I'm not going out of my way to alienate any of you, but I will not stand for being insulted, even when it's not serious. Insincerity is the weakest form of humor available, one that I am above. I will, however, agree to be part of a running joke of sorts, something of self-parody if you will, in terms of modeling my gamer persona after these spats, and making him and his forces like the estranged mad scientists of Brikwars, eager for revenge. I must start building my volcano base...
Edit: Oh, und vait! Zat rrremindss mich! Vy ze bums do Ich nicht hab Professor Monkeyhead displayed?! Is zis a trick of yours?! Ich vant Professor Monkeyhead as ein avatar!
refer to the flintstones for true in stight into what i mean as a "caveman" army.Professor Fairfield wrote:I don't understand your grammar with, "you're trying to bring base the humor." Worse than Zero Wing, and much less funny.
However, it's probably not a good idea to make a battle between spacemen and cavemen if you want to keep things simple. Even if you want to force logic out the door to make things fair, you'll probably find that you need to do even more second-guessing just to maintain that forced leveling. Besides, cavemen would be kind of dull to base a Lego army on, considering they didn't really "build" anything.
Well wait hold on, this is a logical fallacy. It's a "Slippery Slope" fallacy, claiming that one thing will invariably lead to another to another, which isn't necessarially true.Professor Fairfield wrote:Yeah, great idea. While I'm at it, why don't I forget that Legos necessarily connect at the studs and bases, and try to build things by stacking things side by side, sure that they'll fit?! Logic has its place, even in preparing for this game. Sure, that clearly doesn't reflect on the forums' psyche, but I do not care.
Good idea, then maybe you can make one of theseProfessor Fairfield wrote:While I'm at it, why don't I forget that Legos necessarily connect at the studs and bases, and try to build things by stacking things side by side, sure that they'll fit?!
No; not necessarily. Wait for my answer down at the bottom, though, for clarification.IVhorseman wrote: Well wait hold on, this is a logical fallacy. It's a "Slippery Slope" fallacy, claiming that one thing will invariably lead to another to another, which isn't necessarially true.
Don't be too jealous, though, guys. I'm not nearly so menacing in person--and neither is he, for that matter. For example, he wasn't actually carrying an "orange, transparent chainsaw" when I visited him.IVhorseman wrote: Also Also, Benny, I've actually met this guy in person before.