Home The Bridge

DB - Thank you for listening! Shuttles, Dax art, + changes to events:

2

Comments

  • This Sisko1This Sisko1 ✭✭✭✭✭
    My wife left me over the new shuttle color. Can't be any other reason.
  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    First I'd like to say, thank you for your robust feedback. There are many points you've made, which you've made before, and others have made, and have been discussed previously. Those parts of the conversation are out there, and available for people to review if they found it interesting to do so.

    As apparently some people are perceiving my efforts in the way you suggest, then if I say more it will just provide further evidence for their interpretation. If I say nothing, it would suggest that you are right and accurate on all counts.

    That said, I would like to offer a different perspective on a few points:
    Roonis wrote: »
    The premise of the reward table rework is "the player base has grown" when in actuality, the resource pool of the existing player base has grown more.

    "The player base has grown" is only one of a couple premises and not the primary one. I had asked many people and had gotten different information on the numbers that what you presented in your comments above. There was a question raised of "significance", though it is clear that your view is that resource pool is more the culprit and point to focus on.

    Either way, there were actually other reasons and there were several threads, linked to after the op (in efforts at collaboration and being inclusive), in which people had discussed ideas for a percentage based system and smoothing out the rewards. I thought these were interesting ideas, so I attempted to model how they might work. I added in my own idea of putting the crew in the thresholds, as a way of reducing the number of duplicates, to facilitate that smoothing, as a way to alleviate the 5* 1001+ club, and to reduce people being frustrated by which 4* event crew was ranked vs threshold for that event.

    That said, I understand that the resource pool has grown, that was never in dispute or not considered. I also understand and have acknowledged that equivalent to citation value honor would increase the utility and maintain the actual value of that reward earned for all players for of those rewards. So, there were several things I was trying to accomplish at once.
    Roonis wrote: »
    There is a cost to this kind of constant flawed request, it devalues the feedback others give to DB on these forums. DB employees have stated in person, its hard to get a real feel from the forums due to all the white noise and unrealistic requests... ...This is compounded with your need to dominate the conversation whenever these topics come up. Someone came up with a great well reasoned post about changing the valuation difference from ranks 75-1000, and you jumped in, pushed your wall of text, and dominated the conversation to the point the post was lost in the white noise.

    I haven't intended to dominate the conversation, only to advocate for what I thought were interesting ideas and possibilities. If people feel that I have dominated or skewed the forums, I'd like to state both that I disagree, and I apologize if that was their experience. Specific to that particular accusation, I made a post in support of that idea and asked some follow up questions because I was curious how they might look at the things I was trying to incorporate into my version.

    I then responded once more in that thread, saying "This threads event reward suggestion could be used to demonstrate some possibility like that as well." in support of their approach, and suggesting that we're all in this together. I also linked to their idea from my thread over in make-it-so:
    Over on The Bridge there is another well thought out example of possible changes in the event reward structure: Zipf approach to Event Rewards (Proposal).

    627gn71a3joi.gif

    I'm not sure how that gets misconstrued as dominating the conversation. I was trying to be supportive and collaborative.
    Roonis wrote: »
    TL:DR; Your stance of open discussion is disingenuous at best.

    It is possible, to hear someone, to listen and to consider their perspectives and viewpoints, and to still disagree. When I have pointed to the possible influence of cognitive biases or logical fallacies, it was in exploration of the potential influence, not to dismiss their ideas out of hand. It would be inaccurate to conflate those two things.

    I think cognitive biases and logical fallacies are fascinating, and a worthwhile thing to learn about and to consider. I realize that some other people have not shared my interest in openly exploring those things, or appreciated the way in which I have attempted to share those concepts. For instance, I think there is likely some motivated reasoning, informing a bit of the ad hominem in this thread against me.

    I have responded hopefully with a clarification of my intent, and some evidence to that effect. Which might at least inform of options, other than my being disingenuous and such. Do with that what you will.

    Peace.

    So umm, do you have the ability to answer the question regarding your statement that the playerbase has grown to warrant the percentage based reward in a way that would not negatively impact players? Whereas that may not have been your only point, it is a significant factor when proposing changes. Understanding the scope and impact that is.
  • XoiikuXoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2018
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    So umm, do you have the ability to answer the question regarding your statement that the playerbase has grown to warrant the percentage based reward in a way that would not negatively impact players? Whereas that may not have been your only point, it is a significant factor when proposing changes. Understanding the scope and impact that is.

    Thanks for the question. I attempted to address a similar concern earlier in this thread, but at this point I just really don't have any motivation or interest in continuing to participate in these discussions. Sorry.

    The percentage based ranks weren't even my idea, I had just read other people talking about it and thought I'd see how, or if, it could possibly work. Maybe one of those people who had suggested it in some of the other threads or some of the people who had asked about a change to event rewards for the Q&A could answer.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • XoiikuXoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2018
    @Roonis You are welcome to maintain your perspective despite any evidence to the contrary. I don't appreciate having my efforts at building community and collaborating with others misconstrued as something they are not. I'm completely willing to accept and acknowledge that some people may have misinterpreted my efforts as you suggest, but I know that was not my intent.

    Your attacks on my character are unwarranted and unwelcome. If I have so missed the mark in my efforts, such that the way in which you characterize my behavior is indeed the consensus on the forums, then all I can do is apologize, and ask people to reconsider the evidence. I will also continue to try to be more clear and effective in my communication.

    That said, I am not interested in discussing this topic about event reward structure with you anymore. You have slandered me and maligned my efforts thus far, which gives me no indication that we can get back to discussing the specific merits of any particular aspect of any of these ideas without it reinvigorating your attack and presumptions of my intent.

    I am curious how a fair reading of this thread, would convey our behavior and treatment of others.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • FutureImperfectaFutureImperfecta ✭✭✭✭✭
    Shuttle missions:
    Because not everything is black&white: there are degrees of failure and success, and things that we learn and gain from our failures and not-so-successes too.

    From last year on the old forum:
    "Scaled success/failure spectrum for shuttle/faction missions"
    Not sure if Xoiiku's advocacy is what inspired this change but it's very much appreciated. Thanks DB. :star:

    It would also be great if players could choose the difficulty of shuttles, this way we can choose when to run shuttles for the "basic" items which drop less frequently at the upper levels.

    Art:
    After a while of thinking that we weren't really being taken seriously about the art and the Art Feedback thread in Engineering, it's really cool to see some things that indicate at least some of our concerns and suggestions were taken into account, for at least some of the cards. The Dax card in particular (Malik not so much).

    While I still hope for a return to the softer facial lighting of old pieces (instead of solid yellow/blue outlines) and for a return to more more hair and facial detail - I think the colors, shading, and contrast between darkness and highlights on Dax's face make it look lifelike! It makes me feel like I'm looking at Jadzia Dax. :smiley: Thank you. More of this please.

    Q&A:
    Hopefully some of the other issues players care about or that affect them a lot, are taken more into account in the future too. The answers we got to some of the questions, I found vague or dismissive. For example the event Fleederboard and updating event reward structures.

    I think that players shouldn't get less rewards for their efforts in an event, than they did a year or so ago. That it would be beneficial to both DB and to the players if the ranked reward structure is updated to an adaptive system to reflect the growing player base today and going forward:

    - more of a percentage-based system (with some threshold for participation)
    - the rewards smoothed out more through the ranks, so that I'm not getting roughly the same reward for rank 16 as for rank 1000
    - and a copy of the legendary in the thresholds that roughly corresponds to the VP it took to get the 1/5 say, a year ago?
    - maybe some different rewards like honour, to minimize duplicates?
    Some ideas:
    --> Smoothing, % system, threshold crew, honor
    --> Zipf approach, smoothing


    & while on the subject of changes to shuttles, and events:
    - 9h boosts can give a more decent boost, and give 3x rewards for 3x the time, or be 6h boosts that give 2x the rewards. So more players can have a full sleep while still having a shot at their event goals.

    Thanks!

    All of this AND a bag of cookies please.
    Sign me up.
  • XoiikuXoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2018
    Darxide wrote: »
    Let me see if I can translate this to English...

    "Sorry that I was maybe, probably wrong, but not really. It's still your fault Roonis and your a meanie head who hurt my feelings. In order to not have to completely admit fault and to prevent any further logical butt-whoopings from you, I'm just going to stop talking to you now."

    I think that about covers it. You'd better be careful with that pump-fake admission of fault. DB might try to hire you for their PR team.

    Question, when you find yourself in a conversation with someone, who is distorting and maligning previous conversations, or simply having exclusively pernicious misunderstandings, and arguing dismissively by verbosity and repetition, while ignoring any attempt you might make to clarify your meaning or intent, do you:

    A. Continue to engage in an a contentious and unproductive conversation.
    B. Step back and allow people to cool off and consider more carefully what has been discussed.
    C. Agree with everything the other person says because they say it with more certainty and conviction.

    While you consider how you might respond in that situation, among those options or others, know that I chose option B. Now you are welcome, of course, to perceive that however you want. If you care about the accuracy of your perception, then I suggest there might be more things to take into consideration.

    Also, I meant what I wrote about apologizing if people interpreted my posts in the way that Roonis suggests some of them did. However, I am not going to simply agree that Roonis speaks for the forums as a whole or even accurately represents the views of other people, or that their view of my actions are accurate.

    Inaccurate and false accusations happen. I am not simply going to be bullied or condescended into an "admission of fault". Misunderstandings can occur, and not every offense is one which was instigated by malicious intent. Among other possibilities, rather than hastily assigning one sided and myopic "fault", there is an option to track down where the misunderstanding occurred, look at it from multiple perspectives, and try to see the situation clearly and rationally.

    For instance, I'd appreciate it if you'd consider the fact that you have offered me disrespect, and I don't even know how much of the reference material you have bothered to read, or consider, before doing so. You just show up in this thread, and pile on the hate train. How am I supposed to perceive of this kind of behavior? What is your intent? What is your purpose?


    I tried rereading Roonis' posts and couldn't find much of what I would call "slander" or "attacks on character". Not sure if you misunderstood or if this is a bad attempt at gaslighting. Though, I suppose I may have missed a passage or two out of the volumes written in this thread.

    Perhaps you could do a search for "disingenuous", and read a bit of the surrounding context and implications. Then note the lack of follow up on any one of the clarifications which I offered to some similar perceptions offered earlier, or examples I linked to which I think are demonstrative of my intent.

    Additionally, it might be useful, if one was interested, to look into the links to the threads which he is using to try to substantiate his claims of my "dominating" the discussion. I have provided many examples of linking to other peoples post on several topics, and have tried to help promote others, and have done so in almost all of the threads I've started. This could indicate that I've read and considered other peoples views, and had the intent of collaboration and inclusivity.

    Reference the links to other peoples thoughts and efforts in these posts:
    Event Rewards, Threshold:Crew and Ranked:Honor

    Lost Revenue: Does the current honor exchange rate discourage your spending on packs?
    How fused was your Mirror Picard before this con-fusing apology?
    Gauntlet Data Set: Mirror Matches

    So, within that context, you come into this conversation and suggest that I might be making a bad attempt at gaslighting? It could very well be that I've misunderstood, and misinterpreted some of what Roonis wrote. I am sure he is capable of clarifying if he so chose to.

    I think perhaps with a more thorough reading of what has been written, and/or following the provided links, you might find a different perspective, or not.

    Peace.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • XoiikuXoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2018
    @Dirk Gunderson Thank you for your contribution and specific feedback. It's really helped me see things more clearly and understand how some people are interpreting my posts.

    I would like to state however, that I've never made any claim to my ideas being "the only solution with merit". One might find it interesting to note statements like this, "I don't suggest that this is the right way of smoothing out the ranked rewards, it is just one possible way, that demonstrates that it could be done.".



    @eXo | WhiteClifford I notice that you've ignored or chosen not to acknowledge any of my previous response to you. There are perhaps some things there which might be useful to consider. Maybe, maybe not.

    When I have pointed out that similar statements have been made previously it is to acknowledge the prior discussion, and that it might be useful to reference that material such that we can iterate and move the concept forward without covering the same ground again. It's also a way, perhaps not always effective, of letting people know that those things have been considered and discussed, often at length from multiple perspectives, and that there might be other factors at play which are also worth considering.

    That said, there have probably been times when I've misperceived something as being similar to a previous conversation. If so, that's my mistake, and it would be a simple enough thing to take a look at whatever I was referencing, and then letting me know where there is differentiation in the arguments. It isn't meant to be dismissive, it's meant to be referential, informative and encouraging the evolution and refinement of ideas, and acknowledging perspectives other than my own.

    In some fields it's really important and useful to reference previous work and discussions on a topic. Particularly in science, and I happen to think it's useful in general. If that's not your cup of tea, that's cool. There are actually people who appreciate that acknowledgement and reference to their work.

    I think we can agree to disagree, on how polite and on topic, Roonis was.

    In terms of the thread in engineering, I was just trying to be funny, hence the :wink:
    I posted one sentence, which I figured everyone would just ignore anyways. That thread continued on just fine. Do you have other examples of my "barging into threads unasked for" where "several people who won't go back to a thread after you (I) visit"?

    In terms of all the numbers that I used in my event reward suggestions, all of those numbers are in that thread and all of those numbers where acknowledged as placeholder values to demonstrate the core concepts and illustrate one of many ways it could be done.

    You might also find things like this curious statement:
    I suppose at some point I could make a version 003 with the ranked rewards smoothed out as has been suggested as an additional change to the current reward structure. Before that though, I'd be curious to know if anyone has an alternate suggestion for the percentages used in version 002, or if those look workable enough for sake of demonstrating it's possible.

    Additionally, it might be interesting to get a better sense of approximately how many captains are participating in events, such that we can test out those percentages with more accurate numbers than an estimate derived from the arena.

    So, pardon me if I don't completely buy into the narrative being pushed. One might also like to look at the time stamps of the posts in my thread, there was plenty of time for someone in the community to offer up different numbers and help me out. My purpose was just to demonstrate that some of the ideas being discussed were possible, what they might achieve in terms of mechanics, increased competition and motivations, and how they might look.

    I figured that at some point, if people had interest, we could figure out some specific values which might make more sense. I was trying to participate in an iterative process. Certain people tended to miss the point of the ideas being presented and focused to exclusion, on the placeholder variables, while ignoring the fact that I had asked for input and feedback on those prior to doing the work of making the image.

    Then some people assumed the image to be some sort of definitive suggestion, and didn't apparently bother reading the bits in the thread about just trying to illustrate concepts. Mostly other people's concepts at that, and using placeholder values to do so. In that context, you accuse-not-accuse me of, "twisting the data for your own purposes, or you are ignorant of the actual numbers".

    Yes, I am ignorant of the actual numbers. I have written as much many times and never claimed otherwise. I was just trying to do the best I could with the numbers I had to work with. Yes, I did ask several people on discord about many of the numbers which I used and you're welcome doubt that all you want. I did not make a nice spreadsheet or a graph of the various numbers I got from other sources, so I don't have that to offer as proof.

    I plainly and explicitly stated that the participation numbers which I used were based on the arena and that it would be nice to have better numbers. As far as I know, as has been discussed in other threads, everyone other than DB is ignorant of the actual participation numbers. If you have more accurate numbers, it doesn't therefore universally devalue and dismiss everything else I was trying to illustrate the possibility of.

    If that was the case, it would have been helpful to have shared those numbers with me, rather than just criticizing me for not having that data, and assuming-not-assuming some malicious intent for working with what I had.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
  • [10F] Belle'Anna [10F] Belle'Anna ✭✭✭✭✭
    I wonder why the player base hasn't grown? Do people get to a certain level and give up? Is it because it's almost impossible to do well in events without throwing in vast amounts of cash? Is it because of antagonism on the forums when they try to express new ideas?

    I'm guessing heaps if people start this game and quit after a few months. I do wonder if I've been playing against the same people for the last 10 months, and that I've reached my peak of event scores because of stagnancy.

    Anyway, I'm sure there are dozens if different speculations about why the player base isn't increasing, but maybe that's beyond the scope of this conversation.
    Ten Forward Loungers - Give Your Best, Get Our Best!
    Check out our website to find out more:
    https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
  • Dirk GundersonDirk Gunderson ✭✭✭✭✭
    I wonder why the player base hasn't grown? Do people get to a certain level and give up? Is it because it's almost impossible to do well in events without throwing in vast amounts of cash? Is it because of antagonism on the forums when they try to express new ideas?

    I'm guessing heaps if people start this game and quit after a few months. I do wonder if I've been playing against the same people for the last 10 months, and that I've reached my peak of event scores because of stagnancy.

    Anyway, I'm sure there are dozens if different speculations about why the player base isn't increasing, but maybe that's beyond the scope of this conversation.

    Without trying to derail the thread any more than it already has, I think lack of new player retention is the problem. Our fleet sees so many people join, never change their name from Captain, say nothing, and go inactive after a few weeks...even when we reach out and offer welcoming greetings and hints on how to get started. Between buggy chat/PMs, a steep learning curve, and maybe a little bit of disappointment at how far down the ladder they are during events, I can see why non-Trek people wouldn’t stick around at all and why even some Trek fans may be discouraged to continue.
  • t<G>e  Roonist<G>e Roonis ✭✭✭✭
    I wonder why the player base hasn't grown? Do people get to a certain level and give up? Is it because it's almost impossible to do well in events without throwing in vast amounts of cash? Is it because of antagonism on the forums when they try to express new ideas?

    I'm guessing heaps if people start this game and quit after a few months. I do wonder if I've been playing against the same people for the last 10 months, and that I've reached my peak of event scores because of stagnancy.

    Anyway, I'm sure there are dozens if different speculations about why the player base isn't increasing, but maybe that's beyond the scope of this conversation.

    Without trying to derail the thread any more than it already has, I think lack of new player retention is the problem. Our fleet sees so many people join, never change their name from Captain, say nothing, and go inactive after a few weeks...even when we reach out and offer welcoming greetings and hints on how to get started. Between buggy chat/PMs, a steep learning curve, and maybe a little bit of disappointment at how far down the ladder they are during events, I can see why non-Trek people wouldn’t stick around at all and why even some Trek fans may be discouraged to continue.

    There is a revolving door for sure on new players. There have been big steps to make it better, the honor system makes trainers much less of an issue than they used to be for one. So I feel like that retention is better than ever.

    There is also a lot of burnout churn. It feels like every week there is at least one known long time VIP 14 notifying their fleet of retirement, to say nothing of the churn is lesser known or networked fleets. Some of that has always happened, and 2+ years in folks are going to naturally move on.

    There is also quite a large alt population for a game that does not directly benefit alt play. (No trading, which is usually the number one reason for alt play in games) And that compounds both burnout rate, and impact of retired players taking multiple active accounts when they go.
  • JeanLucKirkJeanLucKirk ✭✭✭✭✭
    This game targets a specific audience. Hence the pool of potential players is already limited by nature. Even more so cause the power days of Star Trek are in the past.

    Massive revenue "monsters" in the mobile games market are casual things like Candy Crush or Homescapes.

    Games everyone from a lil kiddo to an ancient granny can pick up and play. While veterans like us find everything in here easy over time, casual players could be overwhelmed at first by everything really.

    When you just play without a plan and a strategy, you will hit countless roadblocks very soon. Also in general this is a test of patience. Not everyones cup of tea, many people want instant gratification and (could) regard various parts of STT as overly frustrating.

    Also in time basically you are doing the same things over and over and over again. A further reason why many could leave the (star-)ship....
  • XoiikuXoiiku ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2018
    Roonis wrote: »
    You have not presented any evidence, you have presented conjecture and ideas, and when presented with differing opinions placed a demanding burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with you.

    There is a difference between asking people what they are basing their feedback or ideas on, and if they have considered prior discussion matter (not just mine), and "demanding a burden of proof". This is at best a misunderstanding, though the directionality of it informs of other options.

    I have been transparent with my reasoning, and only ever presented my contributions exactly as conjecture and ideas. Several times I've linked to statements acknowledging that I was working with incomplete and inexact numbers in order to illustrate the possibility of an idea.

    Roonis wrote: »
    You have attempted to prevent any discussion of holes in your work with this burden of proof, multiple point questions, and walls of citations that don't actually match what you say they do. You just try to make it so difficult to disagree with you from the sheer volume of work involved, it makes people give up.

    Here is another string of accusations, based on a misunderstanding. You continue to push your assumption as fact, and then try to hold me accountable for it. When I point out, and demonstrate what I actually wrote, you disregard that information.

    I'm not sure where these walls of citations are that don't match, please link. Your implication of purposeful obfuscation and duplicitous intent is noted.

    Additionally, I have not attempted to prevent any discussion of those ideas. What I have done, is to ask people to recognize that there may in fact be a difference between what I am actually suggesting, and what they might think I am declaring. Notice the difference here, between suggesting and declaring.

    Roonis wrote: »
    When I tired of watching you bully dissenting opinions, and put in the work to get the actual data you required, you ignore it, claim it was not a major factor anyways, and link to like five threads as proof of that, where the majority of the justification people bring for why rewards should change is because there are so many more people playing, reinforcing the importance of the data I presented. Then, in your reply you describe me finally meeting your standard required for dissenting opinion as "arguing dismissively by verbosity and repetition".

    Now I am bullying? You might want to consider the possible influence of projection.

    I am not responsible for explaining other peoples reasoning, why don't you ask them? Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion that increased player population isn't a significant factor. Which is to say, something to take into consideration, not that it's the prime mover. However, I agree with your opinion that increased player resources are a factor, also worth taking into consideration. That said, I had taken player resources into consideration already, and I have a different perspective on how that would influence competition if the reward structure was reworked.

    As you stated in a previous post, neither of us have numbers on packs sales, so neither of us, know how a change would ultimately play out. Something I have acknowledged previously in other threads. Your view, is that your interpretation of what I had suggested would negatively impact pack sales. My view is different, and the reasons can be found in that thread and elsewhere.

    Roonis wrote: »
    I've done nothing to attack your character. I know nothing of your character,

    I have acknowledged previously that perhaps I've I misperceived your comments as ad-hominem. If that is the case, then I think perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider the way in which you've expressed things, what you imply, and explore the possibility for how there might be room for misinterpretation.

    Roonis wrote: »
    I have pointed out flaws in how you present your facts and stances on issues. Some people get really worked up on certain issues and lose track from their normal behavior, if someone says irregardless in a discussion at work, I can't focus on anything else they say for instance. I think you are so emotionally invested in what you want, you see valid criticism of them as personal attacks.

    You have made assumptions about my "stance", and my level of "emotional investment" and then based your feedback on them. Your misunderstanding of what I wrote, does not constitute a flaw in my reasoning. Which is not to say that no flaws exist, many do. Your assumptions of my feelings and motivations, do not constitute a flaw in my efforts on these forums.

    Roonis wrote: »
    I have not mocked you for not having the data I had.

    If I understand what your referencing, I'm pretty sure that was @eXo | WhiteClifford who was criticizing me for not having data which I had already admitted I didn't have.

    Roonis wrote: »
    I've pointed out that requiring a higher standard of data of your dissenters than you hold yourself to is not really a fair method of debate.

    This is just spurious and incorrect accusation. This, "higher standard of data", which suggests that I am being duplicitous and holding a double standard. Please outline for me, exactly what criteria I am asking of other people, that you think I am not meeting myself?

    You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that I have openly and transparently shared my reasoning, and the numbers I had, in several places on my thread. It's all there.

    In terms of all those other threads I've linked to, I have read every post. At least at the time of my initial linking. Before I participate in any idea oriented threads, and most of the other kinds, I read every post, from the beginning, so I can know what's been discussed already.

    Roonis wrote: »
    Please feel free to use the data I provided to inform future revisions to your plan.

    Thank you for the data, however, I was already done putting any more effort into that concept after the last Q&A. If you, or any one else, would like to iterate off version_003 or zipf version, and submit those ideas to the forum, feel free and good luck.

    Roonis wrote: »
    As far as dominating the discussion, I can believe that's not your intention, and that is why I'm even bringing it to your attention. Your reputation for unfair standards of proof for criticism, as well as linking back to your work, that many know is based on false numbers and premises, makes it so when you come in and link said flawed work, other feels the constructive conversation is over.

    You keep making that accusation and framing it as "my reputation", as if that is a universally shared consensus. Easy thing to say. Please link to the threads which I have come into and made it such that the "constructive conversation is over". Also, please explain how it was, that what I contributed, caused that result to occur.

    Roonis wrote: »
    You can't argue with dissenters the way you do and then play the victim card when someone finally steps up to the plate with what you asked for.

    Is that what I've done? That's an interesting read on events. Thank you for once again, choosing to interpret what I've written, aside from all other options, in such a way which furthers this perception of me you are trying to push.
    We are all downstream from each other and ourselves, therefore choose to be relaxed and groovy.
    Consider participating in civil discourse, understanding the Tardigrade, and wandering with the Subspace Eddies.
Sign In or Register to comment.