DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
wows forum
HTML https://wows.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Debates, Interviews
*****************************************************
#Post#: 495--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Term: support
By: SpeedrunBanAny% Date: September 22, 2022, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your definition isn't the one adopted by the english speaking
community. Your definition is by definition inadequate as it is
not accepted by the english speaking community
Cope about it
#Post#: 498--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Term: support
By: wows Date: September 22, 2022, 11:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=SpeedrunBanAny% link=topic=69.msg495#msg495
date=1663884531]
Your definition isn't the one adopted by the english speaking
community. Your definition is by definition inadequate as it is
not accepted by the english speaking community
Cope about it
[/quote]
Your opinion is proofless and wrong and inadequate. Nobody has
to cope with anything. Support means to help your team mate
against the closest threat/enemy. This is what is meant why Dds
swim to cap and expect to spot enemy DDs and support means that
BB behind him shoot those enemy DDs and not any far objects.
That is how in game all players mean by that term and it would
be pointless to mean anything else by that term. And all English
and non-English player understand this way that term. You didn't
provide any adequate other interpretations for that term.
Do you agree that your link's definition is wrong and mine is
right?
You say: Denying the adequacy of the link is delusional. We
answer: there is nothing delusional because your and others
links were said to be a non-adequate method and you can call
your link with a word Wrong if you like. It is inadequate to
call others delusional and you fail with the delusion term as
well. Links are generally prohibited and your link failed and
you lost the argument.
Also explain, how laughing or puking etc woul make your Wows
community smarter or respectable or anything?
Your definitions of emoticons were not understandable. For
example, one definition suggested to tilt head but that doesn't
provide any understanding, you can move hands too but still no
understanding. Also no visuals appear when you look letter X.
And your definition says that something is a smiley, but what is
smiley and if there are many smiley types then your general
definition fails again. Can you try to talk adequately without
those smileys?
You didn't convince enough why PS is good. Don't use inadequate
smileys and define thing immediately in right position not at
the end in PS sections. PS is not allowed.
#Post#: 499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Term: reporting
By: wows Date: September 23, 2022, 1:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As the topic proved people don't know the ban reasons and you
didn't provide any opposite proof. You didn't say anything
against financial loss argument and others. Mainly your topic
was that bans are deserved.
But you failed to prove that and your opinion is wrong already
because all penalties which reason is unkown are wrong.
"
But important is to understand that people who don't know why
they got penalty are not any way deserving such unknowing and
they don't have to contact anybody."
You and your community has failed with links so many times that
the links are generally prohibited here. Can you agree with
adequate methods and don't use links? I won't open your links.
I didn't understand your question about irony. But in general
you make a mistake in debates if you point irony somewhere. Can
you be adequate and don't add emotions and ironies into your
opinions?
[quote author=SpeedrunBanAny% link=topic=56.msg494#msg494
date=1663884460]
It's not like WG gives chat ban for no reason either
When someone gets chat ban, someone else took the time to file a
ticket to WG and WG validated the chat ban. This is proof that
the chat abn was deserved
If you wish to contest a chat ban but refuse to make an effort
then WG says that's your problem, suck it up and wait for the
chat ban to end
If you got a problem with that system, talk to WG
[/quote]
Why do you believe that WG gives chat bans for no reasons? The
whole reporting system is inadequate as proved and in faulty
systems obviously faults happen. There are so many reports that
a busy student employee just looks quickly over chats and that's
it. For example if you mention in chat a word **** then the
student decides to ban and that example creates an unnecessary
penalty. The word R-ape inside the chat didn't have any
inadequate meaning but reports came because people didn't like
your opinions etc. Even this forum software replaces the R-word
with stars which illustrates the idea.
There are obviously other examples. You can express totally fine
way your opinion and if somebody does not like it then you get
very likely many reports and ban.
You say that a ticket initiates a chat ban process but there are
easier ways too is some reports you in chats. You say that chat
bans are deserved because WG validate the report/ticket. But as
I explained above it surely is validated wrongly from time to
time and the validation looks for the reported persons inputs
and ignores others who may violate more rules. The most
important is to realise that one won't know what did he say
wrong.
You repeat that a person who don't know the reason of the
penalty should start to investigate. I repeat that your opinion
is wrong and people don't have to and should not investigate
anything. And that does not justify the faulty penalty system or
ban.
I looked one link and that was again inadequate. It was about
Tanks game and not Wows game, and the article was old, and the
content there proves what i said- you get financial loss.so, why
do you provide all the time links if we have proved plenty of
times that links are prohibited and proved that many of your
links like this one are useless.
#Post#: 500--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Truth: Wows community are afraid of me
By: wows Date: September 23, 2022, 2:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=SpeedrunBanAny% link=topic=59.msg493#msg493
date=1663884241]
Over replying to people when you have been thouroughly defeated
in a debate is spaming
Why did you write 2 post for my 1 post ? this is also spaming
[/quote]
2 posts in a row are fine because the forum software sometimes
can lead to that, and also phone screens are too small for
longer text, and also it helps readability in longer posts if
you split chunks. In this forum there is therefore many posts in
a row allowed generally. In other forums it is often not but
there are no adequate reasons for that, also other weird rules
exist like Talking about moderation is not allowed. We have
adequate rules here. If your goal is to increase your account's
titles then you post many posts in a row, also it may have a
goal to make visually more opponents and arguments, but such
inadequate goals are not believable in this forum. The rules
topic says that the goal is to be adequate and if someone does 2
posts in a row then there has to be fine reasons and it is
allowed. Does it look that i have inadequate goals or methods?
No. So, no need to worry about 2 posts in a row. But you have
done plenty of rule violations. For example you use personal
attacks like your community does, etc, that is problematic but 2
posts not.
2 posts are not spamming and I don't suggest to use the term
spamming because people fail to define it. I don't know which
better word to use yet for 2 posts in a row. As I explained it
is not a problem but maybe MultiPosting fits better than
Spamming.
If you have adequate intentions the all your methods are fine as
well.
In this topic your opinions were less convincing than mine
regarding the fear. Your main input was off topical claim that I
spam etc but you failed to prove that. I proved that I am
adequate in the official forum.
You din't provide evidence why peopel are not afraid of me.
Can you show where your and your community posts have higher
quality than mine in regards of derailing, spam, etc? Even in
this topic here you are offtopic, derailing, on personal level
etc and in the Wows official forum in my topics there po eople
are too. I proved that you are inadequate in this topic and can
prove that I am not in the official forum.
#Post#: 501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Term: racism
By: wows Date: September 23, 2022, 3:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you prove that IQ is not a choice? IQ test results obviously
improves after training and that you can call as a choice. It
can improve after brain accidents, spiritual experiences, and
other ways and choices. I don't suggest the term IQ but it is
used in racist communities. Provide proof for your IQ-opinion.
Can you prove your claim that my stats are results of my skills?
I debunked it by giving examples of battles where I swim to A1 -
the result is 400 Xp and doesn't reflect any skills and doesn't
have to. If someone choses to swim to A1 then not because he
thinks it is the smart or skillful tactics. Do you agree? Or you
believe that a player swims A1 because he doesn't know where
elsewhere to swim and doesn't have the so called skills? That
debunks your opinion but also we proved that stats don't matter.
All your opinions about stats=skills have been debunked.
Mature society avoids judging others and measuring skills but
some do and it is fine to call it racist if it looks like
racism. The short answer to your question is Yes and enough
proof and explanations has been provided. We can as an offtopic
debate on some such topics in the future.
You failed to answer if you agree that your community and you
title often people and is inadequate, etc. That means you agree
with me and my proofs. Ignoring arguments means that you lose
the debate.
I answered 3 Yeses to your questions and you didn't respond to
those which means that your 3 questions didn't support any of
your arguments. Those 3 tried to prove that the term Racism is
wrong. But you failed and all my given explanations won
regarding the term Racism suitability.
You failed to answer my arguments. For example I explain above
that judging people by p-enis size has the same nature than
judging them by skin color, and i ask which fundamental
difference you see in those racist examples, and you ignore the
question.
Your post talks about someone specific stats which is personal
level and far from the Racism topic.
You didn't respond to mongolouds argument which means you
believe that it is common thing in your community. Seems like
you agree that your community is all I say by the term racist,
but you prefer other word as a label, and, you like to justify
the stats-racism. You failed to defend it becausein general the
so called toxicity is always bad. Your community try to believe
that toxicity is right and good, and that stats are the ultimate
truth. You failed with proving it.
[quote author=SpeedrunBanAny% link=topic=51.msg492#msg492
date=1663884107]
IQ isn't the result of one's choice and neither is their ****
size
Your wows stats is a result of your skill in wows, it is logical
to judge your game performance on your game stats
Society judge you on your skill in other fields, will you call
the society racist because of it?
[/quote]
#Post#: 502--------------------------------------------------
Re: interview 5
By: wows Date: September 23, 2022, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The question was:
"Can you provide proof that wows official forum and your named
forum has lot of grinding questions among other questions?".
You failed to answer.
You provided a response that contains 1 topic from year 2019
with your link:
[quote author=SpeedrunBanAny% link=topic=73.msg488#msg488
date=1663883153]
HTML https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/179151-most-efficient-method-for-credit-grinding/<br
/>There, it took 5 second of google search to find proof.
[/quote]
Your response with 1 old topic about grinding does not prove
that grinding is a popular topic. If you look active topics then
they are mainly Subs, CVs, WG, etc, but not about grinding and
not about anything educational. That debunks you. Obviously you
will deny a debate loss. But denying and your other methods are
so inadequate that i won't agree to continue anymore on that
grinding topic and the upper claims that it tried to support.
You failed with your debate here. We can look if maybe your
other arguments can succeed but it is very unlikely.
Additionally we demonstrated again that links are inadequate. I
have explained the links rule for you and you ignore it still, I
have shows already that your 2 links were inadequate. And if I
looked into the content of your that link here then probably the
content would be also inadequate but I won't look.
You mentioned Subreddit but failed to show anything from there.
That means you lost the Subreddit argument and the upper
arguments that it supported.
We agreed in the beginning that you promise to be adequate, and
follow adequate rules. But you failed with that. You still post
unnecessary links, still use inadequate methods, and have still
racist signature, etc. We declare that interview over with
reasons: you lost debates and wasn't adequate, violated rules.
As you see there is a clear explanation why you get isolated. In
your community you don't practice such clear method.
#Post#: 504--------------------------------------------------
Re: interview 5
By: wows Date: September 23, 2022, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]"You still don't understand why people care about win
rate :" [/quote]
You started to talk about XP and i debunked it and explained
that they care about WR instead and now you started to explain
why people care about WR which. With that explanation about why
people care about WR you prove that you agree that they care
about WR and not XP and that debunks 2nd time your XP argument.
I proved that your XP argument was wrong and explained that the
right is WR argument and you agree here by even explaining why
the WR is the right and your debunked XP argument wrong. That is
clear enough situation to add one more debate loss into your
stats.
#Post#: 505--------------------------------------------------
Re: interview 5
By: wows Date: September 23, 2022, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=SpeedrunBanAny% link=topic=73.msg488#msg488
date=1663883153]
You still don't understand why people care about win ate :
[list type=decimal]
[li]People want to win to grind XP faster[/li]
[li]It's easier to win if you have better team mates[/li]
[li]You can mesure how good a person is from their stats[/li]
[li]People care about other people stats[/li]
[/list]
Simple
[/quote]
It is unnecessary to add 1-word sentences like Simple at the
end. Why we have to explain all the adequate behaviour to you?
There is nothing simple or complex or nice or blue, so it is not
understood what you mean by Simple or Nice. If you mean that
something is simple to understand to you or follows your opinion
simply then that fact it has no value to others. In debates it
does not help any way if somebody tells that he likes his own
opinions or that he thinks that his opinions are somehow simple.
Your opinions are Debunked and your methods are inadequate, but
not Complex and not Simple and not Blue.
You say that I don't know why people are obsessed with WR/stats.
But I have provided enough explanations why I think they do it
and debunked your related opinions. And my opinion does not have
to be the same as your to get a label "I understand".
Your 1st point is wrong because we debunked your grinding
argument. I explained that obsession to WR comes from brainwash
and from default Ransoms WR field that people see first. People
want to win because WR and not because grinding/XP. Your whole
point 1 makes a false statement by therefore and was debunked in
the XP-argument.
Quantity of ships is not a popular topic in official forum
compared to WR. Your point 1 is debunked with all that said.
Point 2 repeats again that stats=skills. You provided yourself 3
points and agreed with mine that proved that stats don't matter.
If you changed your mind then you must admit that you were wrong
earlier. Or, you contradict yourself.All that leads to your 3rd
loss in your debating stats.
Your point to says: You can measure how good a person is from
their stats.
We proved that the term Good is inadequate. Point 2 describes
what statistics can do but it is irrelevant what cars or
statistics can do, and has nothing to do with your list title.
People don't care about WR because clock can show time and stats
can show something or do something else. Stats accumulate
automatically and have no connection if people care about wR or
ship quantity or clock time. Your point 2 is offtopical, and
that makes your whole list wrong.
If you want to rephrase point 2 to say that people care about WR
because they believe it represents their skills, then phrase
with a simple equation: WR=skills. But also that has been
debunked. Even your own 3 points in the Stats matter topic
debunks that equation. But I agree that point 2 is the right
reason and I called it as obsession. But you phrased not well
the 2nd point.
Point 3 again needs rephrasing like this: WR-obsession makes WR
the ultimate truth and value.
So, 1st point was totally wrong, other 2 phrased wrongly, but
they follow what I said earlier. And, the overall obsession is
not adequate, not mentally healthy. So, you were wrong if you
assumed that I don't understand etc. The main result is that you
lost your XP argument, and also contradict your arguments.
#Post#: 506--------------------------------------------------
Re: interview 5
By: wows Date: September 23, 2022, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]It's called a survey. That's what you do when you ask for
a population's opinion. a survey. look it up in the
dictionary[/quote]
No, it is not called a surgery.I don't suggest you to look
anywhere compared to you. I didn't talk anything about surveys
and you can't prove that I did. But I can prove that you were
wrong, because I know that I didn't talk about surveys. As you
see there is no need to give dictionary links and no need to
even mention dictionaries. And without all that to prove clearly
that you were wrong.
In the official forum all surveys that I saw were inadequate and
I believe that survey methods don't work easily on brainwashed
communities and that's why I don't recommend it. But I suggested
an other method but you didn' understand which. It wasn't a
survey method. And it is an irrelevant detail which methods
someone suggests. The relevant thing is that you lost your main
arguments.
#Post#: 507--------------------------------------------------
Re: interview 5
By: wows Date: September 23, 2022, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]The problem is that your wiki are bad and i'm just
showing you why[/quote]
You and your community has lost all debates and are inadequate
and also with that Bad-titling opinion.
We declare your both debate topics ended with your loss and i
provided clear reasons.
Your proofless titling opinion about Wiki is irrelevant. And i
bring your input from there to here.
In my opinion your skills were 10% above the candidate from
Interview 1.
I will write a summary later. Do you prefer if I block your
account or we just agree that you won't post anywhere than your
topic here? You have denied all the rules here so you probably
deny such rule too and then we are forced to block totally.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page