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.
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.
In-jokes are crucial to social group identity formation
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.
Professor Fairfield wrote: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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Professor 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?!
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.
IVhorseman wrote:Also Also, Benny, I've actually met this guy in person before.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest