[quote=Falkoner]devilisk, you almost completely remind me of Shocko, you just like to come into topics and start arguments. There is no need to argue over this, at least not in this topic, if you want to continue arguing, argue over PMs, or start another topic. [QUOTE]You are what you eat.[/QUOTE] This is his topic, why would he troll in it?[/quote] Oh sorry Akar, I didn't know that team mapmaking wasn't about team mapmaking.

Quote from Falkoner

devilisk, you almost completely remind me of Shocko, you just like to come into topics and start arguments.

There is no need to argue over this, at least not in this topic, if you want to continue arguing, argue over PMs, or start another topic.

Quote

You are what you eat.

This is his topic, why would he troll in it?

Oh sorry Akar, I didn't know that team mapmaking wasn't about team mapmaking.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=devilesk]I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.[/quote] You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong. [/quote] Disagree does not mean "wrong". [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly). My claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft. Can you agree on that much at least? [/quote] Actually I can't, that's my point. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] Good. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following: [quote]The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.[/quote] Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let done with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map [i]ideas[/i]; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context. [/quote] "Except that's not true", define truth. All you're doing is making a bunch of conjectures solely based on your personal beliefs. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for fun. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again). [/quote] This doesn't apply in my theoretical community based around the discussion of maps which are never to be completed. [quote=Tuxedo-Templar] Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".[/quote] Assuming you ever entertained my arguments to begin with.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from devilesk

I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.

You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong.

Disagree does not mean "wrong".

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly). My claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft. Can you agree on that much at least?

Actually I can't, that's my point.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Good. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following:

Quote

The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.

Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let done with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map ideas; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context.

"Except that's not true", define truth. All you're doing is making a bunch of conjectures solely based on your personal beliefs.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for fun. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again).

This doesn't apply in my theoretical community based around the discussion of maps which are never to be completed.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".

Assuming you ever entertained my arguments to begin with.

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=devilesk]I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.[/quote] You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong. But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly). My claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft. Can you agree on that much at least? Good. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following: [quote]The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.[/quote] Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let done with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map [i]ideas[/i]; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context. Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for fun. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again). Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".[/quote] At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it. Everytime someone says they're going to stop arguing with someone in a topic, it's a lie, because they actually feel the need to say they'll stop posting, because they just want to feel like they won and have come out the bigger man. When really, in your continued effort to 'win', you have not left the attitude of arguing. If devilesk continues posting in this topic, I'm sure you'll entertain his arguments. The only thing preventing that is an attempt to prove me wrong/prove yourself right. Think about what I'm saying. Stop trying to 'win' and just discuss. Christ. Incorrect and correct points can be made, but your goal should be to learn from it, not take pride in your correct point, or pretend your incorrect points never happened. Umm... amen.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from devilesk

I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.

You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong.


But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly). My claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft. Can you agree on that much at least?

Good. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following:

Quote

The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.

Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let done with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map ideas; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context.



Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for fun. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again).





Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".

At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it.

Everytime someone says they're going to stop arguing with someone in a topic, it's a lie, because they actually feel the need to say they'll stop posting, because they just want to feel like they won and have come out the bigger man. When really, in your continued effort to 'win', you have not left the attitude of arguing. If devilesk continues posting in this topic, I'm sure you'll entertain his arguments. The only thing preventing that is an attempt to prove me wrong/prove yourself right. Think about what I'm saying. Stop trying to 'win' and just discuss. Christ. Incorrect and correct points can be made, but your goal should be to learn from it, not take pride in your correct point, or pretend your incorrect points never happened.

Umm... amen.

[quote=Dapperdan][quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=devilesk]I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.[/quote] You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong. But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly). My claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft. Can you agree on that much at least? Good. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following: [quote]The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.[/quote] Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let done with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map [i]ideas[/i]; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context. Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for fun. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again). Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".[/quote] At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it. [/quote] Rightfully so, of course you can't explain the "wrongness". [quote=Dapperdan] Everytime someone says they're going to stop arguing with someone in a topic, it's a lie, because they actually feel the need to say they'll stop posting, because they just want to feel like they won and have come out the bigger man. When really, in your continued effort to 'win', you have not left the attitude of arguing. If devilesk continues posting in this topic, I'm sure you'll entertain his arguments. The only thing preventing that is an attempt to prove me wrong/prove yourself right. Think about what I'm saying. Stop trying to 'win' and just discuss. Christ. Incorrect and correct points can be made, but your goal should be to learn from it, not take pride in your correct point, or pretend your incorrect points never happened. Umm... amen.[/quote] Lol, the word prove followed by wrong and right. *Shudders* And then "incorrect" and "correct" Dapperdan define them!

Quote from Dapperdan

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from devilesk

I'm not a troll, so you're just trolling.

You agreed to a snarky NO U reply targeted against my request that you provide information to back your reason for saying 'No.' to my previous answer. You wouldn't say no to something if you agreed to it. Therefore you disagree, and you think it's wrong.


But whatever. Here, I'll entertain your request for "common sense": In a mapping thread that addresses the topic of team-based map making where my addon reply for a separate issue was that mapping ought to be taken more seriously instead of just being expressly for fun (because maps don't get done or don't get done properly). My claim was such that this is what I think is the only thing that's "right"; a term that, in this context, applies to anything that furthers the mapping community and general interest in UMS maps and map making for Starcraft. Can you agree on that much at least?

Good. Then building off of that, you then went on to say "No." to my claim that WITHOUT new maps, there's little or no new growth to the mapping community. Ignoring that your NO U reply just negated the rest of your arguments, you said the following:

Quote

The point is that a community can be sustained based around the idea of praising nonexistent maps such as CD. That's just the foundation of their ideals, they don't actually finish maps, they just sit around all day talking about them. There won't be new finished maps, but that doesn't mean there can't be plenty of new overhyped discussions about unfinished maps. As a result, there won't be any loss in Starcraft interest.

Except that's not true. There's only so many times a person can be told something that isn't true (like a map that's going to be made but never is), or else simply let done with poor products, before credibility diminishes towards claims like that in general. Therefore, that is why I've stated that it's not enough to ONLY have map ideas; ideas are only half the equation. You need the other half (at least some of the time) to sustain credibility by holding to promises. Which directly translates to helping the mapping community, and thus being "right" in this context.



Hence why it's important for maps to be made without the expectation of an immediate personal return; they need to be oriented towards the goal of producing a playable product just as much, if not more, than simply being JUST for fun. Otherwise, more often then not, they fail to be completed, or simply drag on ad nauseum, and thus diminish credibility in the community (again).





Consider that the last time I entertain your "arguments".

At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it.

Rightfully so, of course you can't explain the "wrongness".

Quote from Dapperdan

Everytime someone says they're going to stop arguing with someone in a topic, it's a lie, because they actually feel the need to say they'll stop posting, because they just want to feel like they won and have come out the bigger man. When really, in your continued effort to 'win', you have not left the attitude of arguing. If devilesk continues posting in this topic, I'm sure you'll entertain his arguments. The only thing preventing that is an attempt to prove me wrong/prove yourself right. Think about what I'm saying. Stop trying to 'win' and just discuss. Christ. Incorrect and correct points can be made, but your goal should be to learn from it, not take pride in your correct point, or pretend your incorrect points never happened.

Umm... amen.

Lol, the word prove followed by wrong and right. *Shudders* And then "incorrect" and "correct"
Dapperdan define them!

[quote=devilesk]"Except that's not true", define truth. All you're doing is making a bunch of conjectures solely based on your personal beliefs.[/quote] Well by all means, tell me what you know about map making so I can get my turn at calling your information conjectures based on "personal beliefs". Far as I'm concerned, my information is fairly accurate in general. See, in the [I]real[/I] world (haha I said real again :P); that is, the world where shit happens and you tend to die after X amount of years of being alive, conclusions generally are made from information that is only fairly reliable. rarely 100%. It's a luxury to hold out on information that you can always [i]prove[/i] because you can never know all factors; especially when it comes to people. So you take what you can up to the limit of your ability to understand the available information and settle on using that to make your decisions/conclusions. That's the best you can do in the absence of the ability to [i]prove[/i] it. And more often than not, proofs for conclusions drawn from only just [i]reliable[/i] information have a habit of confirming their conclusions. But you being so smart, I shouldn't need to explain that to you. :P Meanwhile, while you go to reload your already-spent trolling ammo, I'm gonna start re-writing the article in a bit.

Quote from devilesk

"Except that's not true", define truth. All you're doing is making a bunch of conjectures solely based on your personal beliefs.

Well by all means, tell me what you know about map making so I can get my turn at calling your information conjectures based on "personal beliefs". Far as I'm concerned, my information is fairly accurate in general. See, in the real world (haha I said real again ); that is, the world where shit happens and you tend to die after X amount of years of being alive, conclusions generally are made from information that is only fairly reliable. rarely 100%. It's a luxury to hold out on information that you can always prove because you can never know all factors; especially when it comes to people. So you take what you can up to the limit of your ability to understand the available information and settle on using that to make your decisions/conclusions. That's the best you can do in the absence of the ability to prove it. And more often than not, proofs for conclusions drawn from only just reliable information have a habit of confirming their conclusions.

But you being so smart, I shouldn't need to explain that to you.



Meanwhile, while you go to reload your already-spent trolling ammo, I'm gonna start re-writing the article in a bit.

[QUOTE]At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it.[/QUOTE] No, I just meant NO U, it means absolutely nothing, just ends arguments :P But in this case it only fed the [URL=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbandictionary.com%2Fdefine.php%3Fterm%3Dflamer&ei=OwvrR8-KOYy8hAKbyfGuDw&usg=AFQjCNFFmFUc7r3xFKIIETDtZ0G6QZ98Ug&sig2=DZd6JjjNNxc0-jYdK_IJtw]flamer[/URL] more..

Quote

At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it.

No, I just meant NO U, it means absolutely nothing, just ends arguments But in this case it only fed the flamer more..

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=devilesk]"Except that's not true", define truth. All you're doing is making a bunch of conjectures solely based on your personal beliefs.[/quote] Well by all means, tell me what you know...[/quote] What I "know" is just as much as you "know" or what anyone else may "know", and does one ever really "know" anything?

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from devilesk

"Except that's not true", define truth. All you're doing is making a bunch of conjectures solely based on your personal beliefs.

Well by all means, tell me what you know...

What I "know" is just as much as you "know" or what anyone else may "know", and does one ever really "know" anything?

[quote=Dapperdan]At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it.[/quote]I understand what Falk was referring to (even just in sarcasm or whatever). But my reasons were already present and awaiting [i]their[/i] reply first, so that didn't apply. Again. lol @ "wrongness".

Quote from Dapperdan

At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it.

I understand what Falk was referring to (even just in sarcasm or whatever). But my reasons were already present and awaiting their reply first, so that didn't apply. Again.

lol @ "wrongness".

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar][quote=Dapperdan]At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it.[/quote]I understand what Falk was referring to. But my reasons were already present, so that didn't apply. Again. lol @ "wrongness".[/quote] Presence does not constitute "wrongness" or "rightness", my reasons were present just as yours were. And what is with western thought and its tendency to value presence over absence? Another one of those binary oppositions which one can deconstruct.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Quote from Dapperdan

At least you actually replied this time. But you completely fail at NO U logic. Like it's disgustingly awful. What Falkoner said, in his NO U post, was "No, you give reasons or gtfo". Devilesk agrees that you should give reasons or gtfo. Your rant about NO U is filled with wrongness and loss, so badly that I couldn't even explain it.

I understand what Falk was referring to. But my reasons were already present, so that didn't apply. Again.

lol @ "wrongness".

Presence does not constitute "wrongness" or "rightness", my reasons were present just as yours were.

And what is with western thought and its tendency to value presence over absence? Another one of those binary oppositions which one can deconstruct.

You need to actually show us its opposite where absence > presence it if want to go about deconstructing anything.

You need to actually show us its opposite where absence > presence it if want to go about deconstructing anything.

[quote=ClansAreForGays]You need to actually show us its opposite where absence > presence it if want to go about deconstructing anything.[/quote] Yep

Quote from ClansAreForGays

You need to actually show us its opposite where absence > presence it if want to go about deconstructing anything.

Yep

[quote=Dapperdan]Everytime someone says they're going to stop arguing with someone in a topic, it's a lie, because they actually feel the need to say they'll stop posting, because they just want to feel like they won and have come out the bigger man. When really, in your continued effort to 'win', you have not left the attitude of arguing. If devilesk continues posting in this topic, I'm sure you'll entertain his arguments. The only thing preventing that is an attempt to prove me wrong/prove yourself right. Think about what I'm saying. Stop trying to 'win' and just discuss. Christ. Incorrect and correct points can be made, but your goal should be to learn from it, not take pride in your correct point, or pretend your incorrect points never happened.[/quote] Why did you join in here to reply then? :P I'm just here trying to see if my original point, you know, the one about being serious about maps, is something anyone agrees or disagrees with, and thus to determine if that's a good philosophy to try to instill in others from here on out. I think it is, since I've yet to hear anyone attempt to refute it in any meaningful way. Yet. So far all I've gotten towards it is a troll attempt at invoking an off-topic debate on the meaning of "truth", and your replies that don't seem to have [i]any[/i] place here in any which way. We never see eye to eye anyway, so I really don't know what the fuck you're [I]doing [/I]here, even. I will admit it is somewhat entertaining tearing pointless troll attempts to pieces from time to time, though. Even if it's pretty pointless in and of itself, ultimately. :P

Quote from Dapperdan

Everytime someone says they're going to stop arguing with someone in a topic, it's a lie, because they actually feel the need to say they'll stop posting, because they just want to feel like they won and have come out the bigger man. When really, in your continued effort to 'win', you have not left the attitude of arguing. If devilesk continues posting in this topic, I'm sure you'll entertain his arguments. The only thing preventing that is an attempt to prove me wrong/prove yourself right. Think about what I'm saying. Stop trying to 'win' and just discuss. Christ. Incorrect and correct points can be made, but your goal should be to learn from it, not take pride in your correct point, or pretend your incorrect points never happened.

Why did you join in here to reply then?

I'm just here trying to see if my original point, you know, the one about being serious about maps, is something anyone agrees or disagrees with, and thus to determine if that's a good philosophy to try to instill in others from here on out. I think it is, since I've yet to hear anyone attempt to refute it in any meaningful way. Yet.

So far all I've gotten towards it is a troll attempt at invoking an off-topic debate on the meaning of "truth", and your replies that don't seem to have any place here in any which way. We never see eye to eye anyway, so I really don't know what the fuck you're doing here, even.


I will admit it is somewhat entertaining tearing pointless troll attempts to pieces from time to time, though. Even if it's pretty pointless in and of itself, ultimately.

Started on [url=http://www.staredit.net/topic/2254/]v2[/url], by the way.

Started on v2, by the way.

[QUOTE]You fail at replying, period, whether it's a legitimate post or a troll (which my posts are not). The only things in pieces are your pathetic responses.[/QUOTE] Simply because you disagree with whatever he says, even if it makes complete sense, which makes you the troll.

Quote

You fail at replying, period, whether it's a legitimate post or a troll (which my posts are not). The only things in pieces are your pathetic responses.

Simply because you disagree with whatever he says, even if it makes complete sense, which makes you the troll.

Enough of that discussion. I've added half of chapter 3 to [url=http://www.staredit.net/topic/2254/#42033]this[/url], by the way. But I still want to know: Should we consider maps to be mainly for fun or to be taken seriously? That was my original question here. Maybe I should make it into a new thread instead?

Enough of that discussion.


I've added half of chapter 3 to this, by the way. But I still want to know: Should we consider maps to be mainly for fun or to be taken seriously? That was my original question here.

Maybe I should make it into a new thread instead?

[quote=Tuxedo-Templar]Enough of that discussion. I've added half of chapter 3 to [url=http://www.staredit.net/topic/2254/#42033]this[/url], by the way. But I still want to know: Should we consider maps to be mainly for fun or to be taken seriously? That was my original question here. Maybe I should make it into a new thread instead?[/quote] Maps are made for fun. Taking things seriously allows for even more fun, I don't know why you think the two are mutually exclusive. For instance, Spawn Defense (a community I'm prominent in --> Clan Spwn) is taken very seriously by all the top players, but we all have fun competing with each other at high levels of play in tournaments and such. The ultimate goal of a true map (not meant for experimenting) should be to create something fun for people to play, while it still being important to present the map in a professional way. Lots of stuff varies on the type of map you're looking to create, so I won't go further into that. And yes, this discussion probably deserves a whole new topic.

Quote from Tuxedo-Templar

Enough of that discussion.


I've added half of chapter 3 to this, by the way. But I still want to know: Should we consider maps to be mainly for fun or to be taken seriously? That was my original question here.

Maybe I should make it into a new thread instead?

Maps are made for fun. Taking things seriously allows for even more fun, I don't know why you think the two are mutually exclusive. For instance, Spawn Defense (a community I'm prominent in --> Clan Spwn) is taken very seriously by all the top players, but we all have fun competing with each other at high levels of play in tournaments and such. The ultimate goal of a true map (not meant for experimenting) should be to create something fun for people to play, while it still being important to present the map in a professional way. Lots of stuff varies on the type of map you're looking to create, so I won't go further into that. And yes, this discussion probably deserves a whole new topic.

http://www.staredit.net/topic/2261/

[quote=Falkoner][QUOTE]You fail at replying, period, whether it's a legitimate post or a troll (which my posts are not). The only things in pieces are your pathetic responses.[/QUOTE] Simply because you disagree with whatever he says, even if it makes complete sense, which makes you the troll.[/quote] Nice "sentence". Also, you fail to grasp my point entirely. Even if what he said makes "sense" (whatever sense can ever mean), what I said makes just as much sense, and yet the two are in opposition.

Quote from Falkoner

Quote

You fail at replying, period, whether it's a legitimate post or a troll (which my posts are not). The only things in pieces are your pathetic responses.

Simply because you disagree with whatever he says, even if it makes complete sense, which makes you the troll.

Nice "sentence".

Also, you fail to grasp my point entirely. Even if what he said makes "sense&q