User talk:Innocent Depravity

GWW:NPA

A personal attack is a disparaging remark about a person, as opposed to content. "This skill is horrible/broken/the worst idea ever in these ways," for example, is fine. "Izzy is clearly incompetenet because" whatever reasons, is not fine. Similarly, "Armond has self-esteem problems" is not fine, but "Armond's idea to (whatever idea) is flawed because (whatever reasons)" is fine as long as those reasons are about the game, not about Armond. In a nutshell, talk about the skills, the game, and the other users' ideas, not about the devs or the other users. If you have any more trouble understanding the concept, I'll be happy to answer any questions. - Tanetris 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but the problem there is that some of the GW staff ARE the problem with the game, so it's impossible to talk about the issues with out calling them out on their stupidity.  ;) Innocent Depravity 07:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Then don't talk. It's not acceptable. - anja 08:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, with that I have invested into this game, which is far more than most, I have every right to be concerned about what happens to it and to try and point out the bad so that it can be fixed.  :) If you don't like it, well, not really my problem. Innocent Depravity 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need to point out errors with the dev team, at least be constructive and suggest how they can improve. And Armond isn't with ANet, so your above concerns don't apply to him. Calor 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether you've only bought one campaign or you have 20 accounts with all 3 campaigns plus EotN and extra character slots, yes, you're perfectly entitled to have concerns about the game, and the devs read their talk pages (as well as forums and such) to hear about players' concerns. As I said, you are welcome to point out things in the game that are bad, and even other users' ideas about the game that are bad. You're not allowed to call the devs or the other users bad. If you have trouble with that distinction, you're going to be banned sooner or later. Probably sooner if you insist on wikilawyering about it. This is a warning from a sysop, in case that wasn't clear. - Tanetris 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Favor

If you want to send me links as per my (semi rhetorical) requests, do so on my talk page so we don't clutter up Izzy's pages any more than they already are. Also, that way I'll be more likely to see them when/if I have internet next (the only place I can currently guarantee I'll have internet is my girlfriend's, but that presents an obvious conundrum).

Also, since you're the first person to accuse me of these things, you might want to consider the possibility that you're interpreting what I wrote (or, in some cases, didn't write) differently from how I intended it to be read. -- Armond Warblade 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The ones I could point out the easiest are the converstaions we have had, and if you don't pay any more attention to what you're replying to than this, then woat would really be the point? Lets just say I'm good at reading people, and while not always right, I'm usually pretty accurate with judgments. You have not fallen short of mine, but my opinion of you really should not matter that much, so just ignore it.  :) Innocent Depravity 07:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The conversations we've had I've usually "left" because either they got really dumb or because I couldn't get internet in time for me to reply and you feel as though I was paying attention. I'll have to disagree with you that you're good at judging people, as I've seen no evidence towards it as of yet, and that I shouldn't care about your opinion of me, as you're blatantly attacking me in several various public places. Generally, yes, I wouldn't care what you think of me, but as you're making it public how horrible you think I am... -- Armond Warblade 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)