User talk:BahamutKaiser

Nikiwiki GW2

Namedropping is quite fun, but don't overdo it. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanking

According to the user page policy, you are not allowed to remove comments from your talk page, unless you are archiving them. - anja 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi BK... our server went down, but it should be up by Monday hopefully... sorry for the inconvenience! Pass it on to others if you know how. We're working on making sure that doesn't happen again. Thanks! Jeni 02:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no it's not your computer (c: Needless to say, Broken and I were shocked when we checked the site and it wasn't coming up. Broken's working on setting up a re-route to a message screen just in case that happens again. Jeni 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding GWW:NPA

Please do not throw personal attacks at other users. Statements such as "It is irrational to a maximum, no sane person would think that" are not productive to a discussion or to the wiki as a whole. I expect someone so adamant on defending a forum of discussion like Nikiwiki to be able to attack an argument without attacking the person behind the argument. Erasculio 14:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's considered custom to reply to a message in a talk page on that talk page, so the "proper" thing would have been if you had replied here. Regarding not insulting anyone...If you don't see how claiming a person is irrational, not sane and silly is an insult, I don't think you have anything to tell me, or vice and versa. Erasculio 17:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We have the option of making it so any page we edit becomes watched, so we have an easy way to learn if it has been edited. Going against the custom of not replying to a message in the talk page said message was left just so the owner of the other talk pages gets a message is pointless, as it's easy to notice when a watched page is updated. I am also going to ask you again to stop with the insults - repeating "irrational" and adding "scorner" to the list is only making your participation on the wiki worse. Erasculio 01:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Winrar

Definitely for giving the most in depth explanations evar. Readem Promote My Ban Here 19:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about balance

Please, don't write so very much in skill balance section. You don't have to author an essay each time you contribute to the discussion, try to focus. In my opinion writing that much is next to impolite, especially as one can tell you have no practical knowledge in skill balancing. Let me give you some examples about that:

• By removing anything you remove diversity, and very seldom does a skill even need to be nerfed. - Completely wrong. If there was an instant-kill skill with no energy cost, recharge or casting time, there's no way removing this skill would reduce diversity. EVERYONE would use this skill, removing it would restore diversity. Of course, this example was exaggerated, but I think you get the point.
• And don't bother trying to introduce party combinations, because it works both ways, one for one, the Air Nuker can continously and frequently apply blind to a melee based attacker and basically negate all of their physical damage, wile dishing out massive amounts of damage, weakness, attack interrupt, and none of that even requires an elite option. - This is a very good example. Your words are true - if your opponent doesn't do anything at all. Your opponents, however, will have brains and skills, too. They will interrupt your air nuker and/or remove the blindness. This is a very essential point to skill balance discussions: You have to argue about what is happening on the actual virtual battlefield, you can't argue about what COULD be done, if there was no reacting enemy.
• Paragons have next to no solo value, [...] - Another statement that's far from what's actually happening on the virtual battlegrounds. Tell me, why do top guilds bring a single paragon regularly? It's quite unlikely that many top guilds just fail to see the uselessness of that, isn't it?
  

I don't want to bash you or something like that, all I'm saying is, that, for skill balance discussions, you need a more ... practical approach. There's a huge difference between something working theoretically and something working practically, and this is especially true for GW PvP. And once again, please do not write so very much, I'm sure there is a way you can tell us your opinion in shorter messages. - TeleTeddy 08:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you will bother to even read this, or watch this page, but someone told me it is appropriate, so here it will stay. Firstly, Seldom does a skill need to be nerfed covers the issue of the very rare exception that a skill does have some no cost instant kill power. If you can name a single skill in the game that had basically no cost and instant kill power, I would still be justified because I recognize the extreme exception to what normally happens, but bringing up an obscurity as a rebutt to a generally applicable truth is obviously irrational, and isn't even close to an explaination otherwise.

One for one, other opponents can bring Elementist counters in just the same fashion that Elementist brings counters for melee, but strategy rules build, and no matter what the interrupt and caster shutdown is, an assassin must cross opponent territory and holding in order to reach ranged units, and even though he can cross distance instantly and apply caster shutdowns in a single sweep, he must expose his own fragility in order to engage, and the elementist can shield himself with this team, making an advance into grouped foes a death token. As I said it works both ways, and banking on the failure in stability and undevelopment already in the game holds little value over alternatives which could be equally cumbersome and unwielding, wile at least including a greater specturm of abilities and strategies for players to enjoy. Niether the benifits or the pitfalls of alterations can be proven without testing, so assuming that it is reckless to make alterations when we are not deviating from an entirely functional current designs. A better balance is always possible, and fearing change only ensures failure, success is overcoming temporary obstercals to eventually arrive.

And your last statement is ignorant, the effect of a single paragon in a group is not solo, it is group. Solo means alone, not single, if your not even educated enough to understand the difference between Paragons solo value and group value, compared to other classes solo and group value, or even understand what solo means, than how can you honestly make a statement. Please save yourself the unavoidable humiliation of failing to correct me again, because irrational arguements will always fail with me. And since I doubt you will have to courage to accept correction and learn, I don't have anything further to say to a coward who wishes to hide his opinion and attempt to draw stronger opinions into private areas to obscure them, I will not bother to correct you in private again, since educating you does not interest me.--BahamutKaiser 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are moving closer to personal attacks, BahamutKaiser. Please, don't. - anja 06:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, all I wanted to say is, that there's a difference between things that work in theory and things that actually work. Of course, counters do exist to every strategy, but that doesnt mean both your strategy and its counter-strategy are necessarily balanced. Watching GvGs and playing Team Arenas regularly, your statements don't fit to what I see ingame, so I think you should pay more attention to this issue. Furthermore, I think you write too much, and by saying that, I don't mean frequency, but size of your statements. Please, try to reduce it and be more to the point. Btw, both of these issues directly address to you, and only you, so your user page is the appropriate place for my concern. - TeleTeddy 08:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Your latest statement here is a good example: You wrote much, but said little. You can express your feelings about wasted potentials of GW and balance in general, but feedback to skill Expose Defenses is NOT the place to do that. Avoid to write essays, stick to the topic - please. - TeleTeddy 10:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request. Your recent post in Overpowered/Assassin/Expose Defenses is a 5 paragraph off-topic essay about elementalists, blinding and guildwars, no where in there did you describe how it relates to the discussion at hand. I don't want to be rude, your input is awesome, just try to keep it on topic and succinct. --Tankity Tank 12:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know there is some things that cannot be predicted by theory, but the point is that they are good options and should be tried. In the face of overwhelming neglect and underdevelopment, the possibility of failure and only moving closer to a remedy in comparison to staying undeveloped and and narrow amounts to no risk at all, little can be lost, and everything can be returned if it doesn't work. There really are no setbacks to altering and experimenting.

People like to believe that what they experience is a truth, wile in fact, it is often deception. Almost every person you will ever meet, will admit that most people are misguided and bias, wile imagining that they arn't, they will assume what they have experienced is a certain truth, when it is their own jaded experiences which blind their perspective. This can be seen clearly by most people who "observe" and "experience" any game feature, and it is the mosted steeped and involved that will have the strongest affinity for existing features, obviously if it doesn't satisfy other players, they will not participate as much. So imagining that immersed players can develop an accurate perspective on the health and opportunity of a game is really nonsense. And I have a history of experimentation to prove it, you can go to any PoS MMO, and the ones who have the most experience will defend it into the ground no matter how bad the game is, and mock any disapprovals just because they had the interest and persistance to pursue something which isn't generally well.

Real solutions come from rationalizing, experience offers insight as to how something works already, and I do have experience, since I have been playing since the game came out, and tested PvP statistically and personally. But experience offers no insight to potential, in fact it will always lead a mind into acceptance, if they continue playing they eventually have to accept how it works, whether it is good or not, and it removes alternatives from their mind.

It is only through rationalizing, creativity, and testing that you can come to genuine conclusions and improvements, rationalizing forces everyone to test their experiences with actual reality, and not assumption of understanding. You will notice that most people who disagree with me make assumptions based on their experience, with not understanding of how experienced I am, and no justification, just dilusion. Others will overlook features, and imagine I missed something, like you, tring to explain how single paragons in a group are not at a disadvantage when the topic was solo paragons, and their ineffectiveness by themselves.

My topics are always the longest because I am nearly the only person who makes rational suggestions and remarks instead of assumptions and misinformation. If this was a topic of only professional writers, half of what I have to say would be understood already, and the other half would be normal explaination of how features should work in comparison to existing features, alteration destination, and satisfaction of use. I don't even have to bring up examples because people expose themselves on every topic, just look at the underpowered skill remarks on Fox's Promise yesterday, some dumby made the comparison between Warriors Cunning and Fox's Promise, like they were nearly equal skills.

When I rationalize a topic, there really isn't much room for disagreeing, it is always the most ignorant people who are quickest to assume they are right without any explaination, and haughty ones who lay down misinformation and bias without even evaluating the situation.

As for insults, in a rational conversation there are no insults. There is only right and wrong, and the ignorant. Ignorant people get insulted by correction because they are more concerned about their acceptance than the topic or improvement, they will bold facedly overlook their faults even when corrected and try to attack at any level in order to hide their indignity. I really don't care if people are insulted, they are ignorant, and unless they are mature enough to learn, it will be their downfall. There is nothing to be gained from debating interests and sharing assumptions, because as long as either party isn't willing to explain and test their thoughts, a conclusion cannot be reached.

And I will end with this, your obviously mistaken and I already pointed that out, if you disagree with my conclusions than your completely welcome to explain your opinion with facts instead of assumptions and bias, and apparent psychic powers because you have no comparison between your experience and mine. If you can explain your conclusions with rationalization instead of personal bias which you call experience than we can test eachothers beliefs until a truth is found. And if we were to take claims seriously, the discussion would be over as soon as you found out who I was, since I have already suggested DOZENS of ideas that have been adopted by the game, predicted that thousands of innacurate and broken ideas could not be accepted, and they never were, and that I have played this game since Prophecies retailed, experienced and run tests on multiple features, studied much of the mechanics and functions of the gameplay engine, have been designing concepts for nearly a decade, have been offered professional and freelance possitions in game review and walkthrough publication, and..... I'm Korean..... HA. If we were to take into account my vastly superior understanding and experience than the discussion would be over before it began, and only proven and reputable writers would bother having discussions with me. But none of that can be known unless you know me personally, or study my contributions, so get the point, your so called claims to understanding are worthless.

When you disagree with something, you lay out factors and figures and than justify your interests and pursuit with rational explainations, this way either one or the other will be discovered correct, or both will develop even greater conclusions. If you think your going to tell someone who is vastly more experienced, and even vindicated, how much your opinion weighs and that you can assume otherwise without any justifcation, and deny theory with claims, than your seriously senial, I don't care how offended you are by it, because it is a flaw you need to recognize. A wise man loves correction, and I don't care what a fool thinks, so get real or stop bothering me, because it isn't easy to spend 40 times more time and effort to learn, design, and explain higher concepts to someone who hasn't the capacity to recognize, and it doesn't matter how many people agree, because a professional designer will understand explaination, and knows claims are worthless in game design.--BahamutKaiser 00:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking in from the outside on this, BK, I don't think anyone is asking you to stop rationalizing. I think it's more that they're trying to give you feedback that you're trending too far from your topic and not tying your tangents back to your main focus well enough, and as a consequence not having nearly as much of an impact as you could have, while at the same time making people less likely to fully appreciate what you're attempting to convey simply because they don't want to have to sift through a large amount of text that doesn't necessarily flow well together in order to pluck out your salient points. Perhaps you might consider looking back over your writing before submitting an edit and seeing if there's anything you can clarify, shorten, or otherwise make more accessible before you post, rather than simply letting your own thought processes directly flow into your writing . The best arguments are those that condense rationality into succinct and easy-to-grasp segments. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

......Very well said. I am sorry that I have subjected much of everything I touch with entirely too broad and overdeveloped explainations. And though I would like to avoid such long explainations, it is hard to work with such poor recognition and development. Wile I would agree that my discussion belonged in a sperate topic about the widespread alteration and redevelopment in the game, it was unfortunatly invited by ignorance and denial. Had others not degraded to misinformation, denail, assumption and than continue on to invite me to explain why after so much nonsense. Still I will try to keep the discussion more on topic, and try to find or create a space for an overall discussion about the direction of skill development and such.

Yet it is still important to recognize that working skill balance is about how a skill fits in with all the other skills in the game, and not a dry comparison between simular skills without even recognizing profession and attribute significance, and I don't think you can have a real discussion about a skills balance without putting it in context with other skills properly, and projecting related alteration needs.

If someone would like to archive or move the existing discussion or remarks that is fine, but I have to warn, that my remarks will inevitiably be longer in general, whether on topic or not, I do not see the point of soliciting unjustified opinions.--BahamutKaiser 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoho... I'll quote: If we were to take into account my vastly superior understanding and experience than the discussion would be over before it began, and only proven and reputable writers would bother having discussions with me. - You're vastly superior arrogant, that's it. Face it, there are other people in this world and in this wiki who can think, you're not the only smart guy around here.

And yes, I know every opinion is biased, you don't have to explain that to me, but thank you anyway. I do not think, however, there's right or wrong in a skill balance discussion. Maybe one skill is overpowered, maybe it isn't, it depends on your point of view, but there is no hidden truth, which some people can see, while others fail - you cannot seriously believe that. Be assured that I ask several friends for their opinion about skills being over- or underpowered, before I write in skill balance section, so it's not only my experience, but the pooled opinion of several PvP players doing fairly well (and btw, referring to experiences you made ingame doesn't necessarily mean, you haven't rationalized the topic). Of course, this is no guarantee for being right, but pure rationalizing is neither, there's always the possibility you overlooked something. In the end, experience is a good indication, nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I weigh statements that are born out of practical experiences over such that derived from pure theory, because my experience (with MMOs in general) tells me, that it's so much more difficult to find a healthy balance by theory, only.

Again, I'd like to request that you write less (regarding the size of your statements), Aiiane phrased it nicely: You're lessening your impact, as many people won't read lengthy explanations, especially when noticing, that you drift off from topic regularly. Try to be less arrogant, use less explanations, and give them, when asked for, but not in advance.

One last thing: This is not the place to argue about specific skill balance. I'm trying to make a point here, this discussion is not born out of pure pleasure. ;) - TeleTeddy 09:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Go cry to someone else Tele, I don't care how you feel about it. Not everyone is rational or intelegent enough to make good ideas, equal treatment is not equal ability. Your too busy riding your paper ego to realize that this is an explaination why opinions have to be rationalized, and no matter how intelegent you are, or stupid you are, if you simply rationalize your ideas you will eventually reach an agreement, assumtions based on your experience, which is ultimately a lack of experience, is just a way to protect your interests without justifying them. This conversation is done, I don't care what you think because your too ignorant and immature to grow, and I don't care what you think if you cannot accept your wrongs. I'm not going to tolerate you errors and shortcomings wile you pretend to correct me with your own ignorance on the topic, go tell a moderator, I have legitimate topics to discuss, I'm not here to justify myself to you.--BahamutKaiser 15:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

BahamutKaiser, this is your final warning on GWW:NPA. Seriously, stop the insults. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I am nothing but dirt beneath your boots. I wouldn't listen to dirt either, if I were you, but maybe you'll listen to Tankity Tank and/or Aiiane. Ah, there's one question left: You said "As for insults, in a rational conversation there are no insults." - So tell me, is it some strange coincidence that there are quite a few insults in your texts regularly? - TeleTeddy 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What it means is they were all accurate descriptions, whether you appreciate it or not doesn't matter, I am only liable for slander.--BahamutKaiser 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

An article that might be of interest to you...

[1] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't of interest to me, writing and presentation are not what I'm pursuing, and since the Retainer of the topic confesses his english difficulties, I'm not even worried about the disapproval.

I'm here to discuss ideas and alterations on skill balance and new ideas, and since I don't see anyone soliciting logical education or creativity and design priority, I find this remark pretty meaningless, because none of the topics I write on are about spelling and grammar, and there are much greater priorities being overlooked.

If I get the urge to author work in a publication, or write a wiki topic on features of the game, I will care about writing excelence. As long as I am having a discussion about game function, progression and evolution and balance priority in a discussion page with others who don't even have an accurate direction or objective perspective, I'm going to invest very little effort into paragraph design and presentation, no more than I would practice a speech to have a conversation. Perhaps you should search for a link on appropriate context.--BahamutKaiser 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not referring to any particular comment. My suggestion of that article was based off my own observations of your writing. You tend to overexpress points which could be put forward much more simply - and if you read the article, you'd realize that it's not about design and presentation, but rather about writing clearly. Or are you telling me you don't care if others get what you write? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The elaboration and detail of my remarks does not make mine any less organized than those of others, it is simply the sheer volumn which makes it difficult for people who arn't actually concern to get some education.

I don't make entirely over-elaborated context and justification on each topic in order to change anyones mind. Those who are truely involved with searching for the best way to act will quickly notice and absorb or agree with a wealth of logic and creativity. Those who don't care will naturally overlook or deny anything they arn't personally interested in, and protect their personal bias and prejudice reguardless of whether their opinions and suggestions are useful or not. Detailing and Describing my viewpoint simply saves me the time of making 100 seperate responses to every nipping remark made by every person who doesn't like it, and is only searching for ways to rebutt me instead of doing some due dilegence of their own and saving me the trouble of correcting them and confirming my analysis. That is the way it happens, years of forum discussion has proven it.

If you want to fix some serious issues, tackle the general ignorance of significant priorities and persuit of general wellbeing which is overlooked for personal interest. How about making a stand against subjective remarks, prejudice fears and bias interests which greatly outnumber the amount of educated objective opinions. Don't bother the one guy with the most support for logical understanding and respect for priority issues with his grammical and presentation capabilities. If it is that serious, feel free to do some interpreting and spell checking for me, because I am already dividing myself between my Job, My Own Business, my Social and Romantic Life, my Excersise, my business education, and actually playing and educating myself on this game and the industry wile taking time to spend a few hours to describe some topics online, and if I wasn't divided enough, there arn't anymore hours in the day for me to dedicate to making fancy and editing of my writing, I only have enough time to shoot out my analysis as fast as I can wile racking my brain to come up with the most logical solutions which others overlook in place of initial impressions and prejudice..... or even gramical and political acceptance. I spend more time than most out of a much more constrained limit than most, and my way just happens to be the fastest way to get my thoughts down before they get erased by a new thought or personal priorities, and finish the deliberation ahead of time. Anyone who isn't disciplined enough chew through logical conclusions doesn't have a worthwile opinion anyway.--BahamutKaiser 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article claims that clear thinking and clear writing are strongly related, and I do think the same. I fail to believe in your superior logic, as long as your writing is so vague and over-elaborated.

Besides, life isn't that simple, Bahamut, you cannot say: "Everyone who objects me is either to dumb or to sluggish to understand me, because my arguments are perfect!" You neither can say: "My statements are so valuable, everyone who wants to understand it has to invest time - cause I cant!" It just won't work this way, people won't listen to you with that attitude, not the unimportant ones you seem not to care about, neiter the important ones, which make the decisions in the end. - TeleTeddy 09:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Invest in some reading ability, since you misunderstood what I wrote. Notice that I never said I was always right, and that anyone who reads my articles will automatically realize it or agree, I said anyone with a worthwile contribution who reads "A" logcially and creatively developed article will quickly latch onto it and learn from it or agree with it.

Since you've already exemplified your ability to overlook truth, misinterpret functions and oppose logic just to support your interest with subjective and undeveloped opinions, I really don't care what your analysis is. Your the failure I'm talking about, and I think I already said I'm done wasting time addressing you, stop wasting my time, your not intelligent enough to contribute to me. At least Aiiane had objective and rational imput to offer, even if it is mostly irrelevent to me, your just a nussance, feel free to spout your opinion publicly to someone who doesn't know better, you have no useful imput to offer to me personally teddy.

Your really not entitled to offer your opinion about a private topic about a person on their own discussion page without taking the time to look into them, and if you read what I just said last, you would realize that I just explained that I am doing my writing in between a vastly busy lifestyle with much higher priorities, and am doing this in the fastest and least occupying manner to get my contribution down easily. If I was being paid for my time and production, writing for display in an article, or just had the spare time to waste, it would be more articulate.......... and I'm done wasting breath, it really doesn't matter what you think, screw off Ted.--BahamutKaiser 01:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone has lost his patience.--71.251.177.38 18:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're* -Auron 23:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

I'd like to ask you to take a break from the wiki for a bit. I know it probably sounds quite forward, but looking over your contributions to Izzy's talk pages, you post a large number of personal attacks and insults. Please, stop posting for a few days and then come back and reevaluate how you can best help the community. Armond 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, you must have mistaken my interest. I don't care about your community, and I think I made it clear that I don't care about your opinion either. I'm here doing the only thing that does matter, coming up with relavent ideas, getting to the matter of the topic, coming up with acceptable solutions. The behavior yal are contributing is pathetic, I imagine you would be insulted, and though I'm not talking about you particularly dumb people are going to feel bad when they are corrected, and I'm not going to feel bad about it.

Why don't you get Izzys opinion on it, cause yal can pat eachother on the back all you want, doesn't change the fact that your contributions are worthless. Here's a better suggestion, why doesn't everyone else leave, cause basically nobody is coming up with solutions, just bs.--BahamutKaiser 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously asking someone to leave? I've seen some stupid shit on this wiki before but that request is the new #1. Someone asking me to leave would make me want to stay even longer. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Disparaging users is still a violation of our policies. No matter if you care about the community or not, you are not above policies. I will give you a one day time out, you have been warned several times already. - anja 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking him to leave - just to take a step back and come back later, as Anja interpreted it. Armond 19:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, hilarious. Nobody else has something relevant to say, you're the only one who should talk to Izzy in the first place. What more can I say? One man against all others, this is a hero's story, truly. Seriously, just think of other situations where one guy claims to be the only one who's right, while all others fail, and maybe you notice, that something's very wrong, here. - TeleTeddy 09:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, the maturity of the opposition shows, as childish writers rejoice when peerless logic is silenced and mock in private rather than spend their time on what matters, the gameplay. I don't buy this bull shit for a second, you worthless moderators are busy attacking a logical writer who repremands nonsensical ignorance and denial aimmed at the developers in insults and mockery, and claim that I'm being rude.

Shove it up your ass fool, there now you have something legitimate to ban me for, permenantly for all I care. Oh you can silence the one of the extremely limited people who will speak about a topic, whether he is for it or not, from both sides, and seek means to balance the game rather than fit a skill into the meta, but you can not stand up for the developers of the game in their own discussion space over obviously misguided topics full of ranting, bitching, mocking, insulting children. Oh right, I was being insulting because I talked back to a bunch of idiots leaping to simple conclusion rather than fixing a widespread problem, and I'm insulting because dumb writers can't stop to think about a solution any longer than it takes them to type a response. Screw you liberal, majority pandering, simple minded, impatient, immature, insecure, irresponsible imbecils, of course I don't respect your opinion, because it is worthless, and only a liberal idiot respects an opinion based on a mystic sense of equality, their opinions are only worth what they reflect, and they reflect nothing but impatients and selfishness.

It doesn't even matter how long they play, how much they achieve, or who they buddy up with, the only thing that matters is whether or not they can see the ultimate objective and develope rational, creative and enjoyable means to rectify a problem. And you can defend your perspective all you want, but no matter how much of this bull shit is spread all across every single forum, wiki or blog, you will not be able to improve the game because your not developing a cure, your just picking at scabs.

As for me, I have higher priorities than giving away developed suggestions and sound logical discussion to a bunch of fools who can't negotiate with or tolerate my work. Advanced development is owed respect, and if you cannot abide by simple objective judgement, than I woln't waste my time here. Here's one less problem for you to solve, you can go back to herding the simple conformist opinions of a bunch of sheep. I at least hope your not to busy going in circles to demand and assure the decent behavior of all the dumb shits ranting at the developers directly. Feel free to ban, block, erase or edit what you like, I don't care.--BahamutKaiser 02:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you are obviously aware of GWW:NPA, having been both warned and blocked for it already, I've given you a 3-day block for yet again violating that policy.

If you can't contribute in a manner that is respectful to other editors, the wiki does not want your contributions. It's that simple. We'd love constructive edits, but edits which needlessly disrespect others are destructive, even if they make valid points. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If I emoted slamming the door on his ass as he left, could I receive an admin warning? =\ Armond 05:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that r15? That'd be neat. -Auron 06:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your posts

Im sure you have good intentions but does everything you post have to be a 9 page long essay? i rarely read them because it would take so damn long.

Not only that, there all full of insults. ~ Kurd 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for real. I swear I saw him drop the n-word somewhere. --71.229.204.25 09:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)