I think the part the feels scummy to most people that have objected is that the multipliers every Alliance starts the season with is based on PAST performance. Those that were involved in hopping around knew this, so instead of growing their rating to where it would naturally go, but dealing with a lower multiplier until that point, they jumped to an empty one so they could have a higher multiplier at the start.
I can see how people feel that is scummy, even if perfectly legal, and I can also see how people say they would have been there naturally anyway given enough time.
That's why I say Kabam should have implemented a personal rating that follows the player, and Alliance rating should be the average of all members that participated in the most recent war. Then none of this would have mattered. They could have created a brand new Alliance and started at a rating that was fitting of its members.
And no one would think of doing this on a whim in the middle of a season, because while your rating would be retained using an average of all the members, your points towards the season would start over at zero.
I think the idea that they cannot move to a different alliance is asinine. People change alliances all the time and alliance mergers occur on a regular basis. Usually, it is done to maximize rewards. It is certainly within the rules of the game and it is not an exploit nor is it cheating.
Really, it doesn’t affect you. You’re alliance’s ranking will not be affected. A top 1,000 alliance will still be top 1,000. If you’re the alliance that finishes 1,001 then reality is you should have won one more war.
The alliance in question is loaded with top level players and they will eventually reach tier 1 or tier 2. They will steamroll through tier 4 and tier 3. To make a comparison, most of us are playing in a rec league and they’re trying to win the Super Bowl.
Only there is an issue with the way matchmaking works. Because both rating and prestige are taken into account (to fix other alliance hopping issues) so instead of steamrolling through the alliances to their way back up they can't find any matches.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
You should just avoid using “staunch” incorrectly.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
If you cannot express your thoughts correctly with the right words, you're not debating anything.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
But more importantly, in general it is not appropriate use of the term to call someone's own support of their own opinions "staunch" because by definition, we always believe what we believe. You can't staunchly support yourself. That's nonsensical. That implies there are people who aren't "staunch" supporters of themselves - that they aren't sure if what they believe is what they believe and aren't loyal to their own position.
That's why saying you find the reactions in this thread to be "staunch" is weird, and borderline meaningless. First because reactions can't be staunch anything, second even people can't be "staunch" they have to be staunch somethings - staunch supporters, staunch advocates, staunch debaters - and third, you can't really be a staunch supporter of yourself, and most people here are voicing their own opinions, not taking up the cause of someone else's.
By using words incorrectly, you are vaguely and ambiguously making difficult to parse allusions. To the extent that your words have any meaning at all, the most reasonable possible meaning someone could infer would be that you're accusing everyone in the thread of specifically supporting one person's viewpoint collectively. I don't think that is what you intended, but how could I possibly know for sure.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
I'm not sure if you are trolling, but you all get points for amusement.
And no one here will tell what I can, and can't fight for. You are all just a bunch of sheep.
You're accusing people who won't kowtow to your opinion to be sheep. Can they not afford irony in third world countries?
So now you are mocking my cultural background and my ethnicity to make a point?
Not at all. I am mocking your previous statement that since you come from a third world country you somehow have a more assertive viewpoint. I'm also implying a certain amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness, and I will admit I did so in a manner that would be self-confirming if true in the latter case.
I will just state directly that repeatedly accusing people of having no spine just because you are unable to convince them you're correct is one of the few behaviors I have no specific qualms about mocking, because it is entirely reprehensible conduct.
How is this still going on. It has gone way off the rails. Mods need to close this.
It’s not cheating. It’s not an exploit. THEY aware in charge of 2 allies. They all moved to THEIR OWN second ally. People are just mad because they don’t like some of the individuals. I don’t like them either. But this is absurd.
If you cannot express your thoughts correctly with the right words, you're not debating anything.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
But more importantly, in general it is not appropriate use of the term to call someone's own support of their own opinions "staunch" because by definition, we always believe what we believe. You can't staunchly support yourself. That's nonsensical. That implies there are people who aren't "staunch" supporters of themselves - that they aren't sure if what they believe is what they believe and aren't loyal to their own position.
That's why saying you find the reactions in this thread to be "staunch" is weird, and borderline meaningless. First because reactions can't be staunch anything, second even people can't be "staunch" they have to be staunch somethings - staunch supporters, staunch advocates, staunch debaters - and third, you can't really be a staunch supporter of yourself, and most people here are voicing their own opinions, not taking up the cause of someone else's.
By using words incorrectly, you are vaguely and ambiguously making difficult to parse allusions. To the extent that your words have any meaning at all, the most reasonable possible meaning someone could infer would be that you're accusing everyone in the thread of specifically supporting one person's viewpoint collectively. I don't think that is what you intended, but how could I possibly know for sure.
There have been some straw man arguments made throughout these numerous pages. But the examples he used were not.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
If you cannot express your thoughts correctly with the right words, you're not debating anything.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
But more importantly, in general it is not appropriate use of the term to call someone's own support of their own opinions "staunch" because by definition, we always believe what we believe. You can't staunchly support yourself. That's nonsensical. That implies there are people who aren't "staunch" supporters of themselves - that they aren't sure if what they believe is what they believe and aren't loyal to their own position.
That's why saying you find the reactions in this thread to be "staunch" is weird, and borderline meaningless. First because reactions can't be staunch anything, second even people can't be "staunch" they have to be staunch somethings - staunch supporters, staunch advocates, staunch debaters - and third, you can't really be a staunch supporter of yourself, and most people here are voicing their own opinions, not taking up the cause of someone else's.
By using words incorrectly, you are vaguely and ambiguously making difficult to parse allusions. To the extent that your words have any meaning at all, the most reasonable possible meaning someone could infer would be that you're accusing everyone in the thread of specifically supporting one person's viewpoint collectively. I don't think that is what you intended, but how could I possibly know for sure.
If you want to focus on what words I used and ignore my main point, that's entirely up to you. I thought you to be more intelligent than that. I have no interest in being perfect, and this entire discussion just mutes what I was saying regardless. If we're resorting to nitpicking over wording then the discussion has spent itself. It's a terribly limited way to think that the only appropriate use of words is the one you hold. Last I checked, English is a free language that contains words with many uses and meanings, and people are free to use them however they see fit to express themselves. Now back to the topic.
I'm not sure if you are trolling, but you all get points for amusement.
And no one here will tell what I can, and can't fight for. You are all just a bunch of sheep.
You're accusing people who won't kowtow to your opinion to be sheep. Can they not afford irony in third world countries?
So now you are mocking my cultural background and my ethnicity to make a point?
Not at all. I am mocking your previous statement that since you come from a third world country you somehow have a more assertive viewpoint. I'm also implying a certain amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness, and I will admit I did so in a manner that would be self-confirming if true in the latter case.
I will just state directly that repeatedly accusing people of having no spine just because you are unable to convince them you're correct is one of the few behaviors I have no specific qualms about mocking, because it is entirely reprehensible conduct.
You have to learn how to relax. I understand your point of view and that you really enjoy to debate, but you are not playing the same game as the others here. Other people are commenting without a structure and without editing their paragraphs. You are, but it doesn't mean other people do. So, I know it sounds stupid, but you shouldn't keep pushing on grammatical errors or on evolving opinions that contradict themselves. You should, for the most part, just read the latest comment from that person, try to understand why he is saying that, and then you can comment in your style.
But people do not write forum posts in an academic way. It would be nice if they did, but they don't. Your expectations are too high. Let's debate in a way we can change our minds from post to post. You know... fun.
I'm not sure if you are trolling, but you all get points for amusement.
And no one here will tell what I can, and can't fight for. You are all just a bunch of sheep.
You're accusing people who won't kowtow to your opinion to be sheep. Can they not afford irony in third world countries?
So now you are mocking my cultural background and my ethnicity to make a point?
Not at all. I am mocking your previous statement that since you come from a third world country you somehow have a more assertive viewpoint. I'm also implying a certain amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness, and I will admit I did so in a manner that would be self-confirming if true in the latter case.
I will just state directly that repeatedly accusing people of having no spine just because you are unable to convince them you're correct is one of the few behaviors I have no specific qualms about mocking, because it is entirely reprehensible conduct.
You directly used my background to make a senseless remark. Which one of our conducts is more reprehensible?
Have more class.
You called anyone who doesn’t agree with you sheep, the classless one is you. Have you ever left your alliance to another? If you did then you didn’t earn the war rating per your logic and have cut in line!
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
If you cannot express your thoughts correctly with the right words, you're not debating anything.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
But more importantly, in general it is not appropriate use of the term to call someone's own support of their own opinions "staunch" because by definition, we always believe what we believe. You can't staunchly support yourself. That's nonsensical. That implies there are people who aren't "staunch" supporters of themselves - that they aren't sure if what they believe is what they believe and aren't loyal to their own position.
That's why saying you find the reactions in this thread to be "staunch" is weird, and borderline meaningless. First because reactions can't be staunch anything, second even people can't be "staunch" they have to be staunch somethings - staunch supporters, staunch advocates, staunch debaters - and third, you can't really be a staunch supporter of yourself, and most people here are voicing their own opinions, not taking up the cause of someone else's.
By using words incorrectly, you are vaguely and ambiguously making difficult to parse allusions. To the extent that your words have any meaning at all, the most reasonable possible meaning someone could infer would be that you're accusing everyone in the thread of specifically supporting one person's viewpoint collectively. I don't think that is what you intended, but how could I possibly know for sure.
I have no interest in being perfect, and this entire discussion just mutes what I was saying regardless.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
If you cannot express your thoughts correctly with the right words, you're not debating anything.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
But more importantly, in general it is not appropriate use of the term to call someone's own support of their own opinions "staunch" because by definition, we always believe what we believe. You can't staunchly support yourself. That's nonsensical. That implies there are people who aren't "staunch" supporters of themselves - that they aren't sure if what they believe is what they believe and aren't loyal to their own position.
That's why saying you find the reactions in this thread to be "staunch" is weird, and borderline meaningless. First because reactions can't be staunch anything, second even people can't be "staunch" they have to be staunch somethings - staunch supporters, staunch advocates, staunch debaters - and third, you can't really be a staunch supporter of yourself, and most people here are voicing their own opinions, not taking up the cause of someone else's.
By using words incorrectly, you are vaguely and ambiguously making difficult to parse allusions. To the extent that your words have any meaning at all, the most reasonable possible meaning someone could infer would be that you're accusing everyone in the thread of specifically supporting one person's viewpoint collectively. I don't think that is what you intended, but how could I possibly know for sure.
I have no interest in being perfect, and this entire discussion just mutes what I was saying regardless.
Mutes? Moots?
Mutes. Silences what I was actually saying. I think it's time we worry about our own words. This is getting small-minded and petty. If I type it, that's what I want to say. End of story.
Too rigid in its convictions. I suppose I could call it a Strawman, but the bottom line is, it's not an exploit, and I don't see the need to go off on it as some kind of injustice.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
If you cannot express your thoughts correctly with the right words, you're not debating anything.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
But more importantly, in general it is not appropriate use of the term to call someone's own support of their own opinions "staunch" because by definition, we always believe what we believe. You can't staunchly support yourself. That's nonsensical. That implies there are people who aren't "staunch" supporters of themselves - that they aren't sure if what they believe is what they believe and aren't loyal to their own position.
That's why saying you find the reactions in this thread to be "staunch" is weird, and borderline meaningless. First because reactions can't be staunch anything, second even people can't be "staunch" they have to be staunch somethings - staunch supporters, staunch advocates, staunch debaters - and third, you can't really be a staunch supporter of yourself, and most people here are voicing their own opinions, not taking up the cause of someone else's.
By using words incorrectly, you are vaguely and ambiguously making difficult to parse allusions. To the extent that your words have any meaning at all, the most reasonable possible meaning someone could infer would be that you're accusing everyone in the thread of specifically supporting one person's viewpoint collectively. I don't think that is what you intended, but how could I possibly know for sure.
I have no interest in being perfect, and this entire discussion just mutes what I was saying regardless.
Mutes? Moots?
Mutes. Silences what I was actually saying. I think it's time we worry about our own words. This is getting small-minded and petty. If I type it, that's what I want to say. End of story.
But that's part of the problem. Sometimes what you want to say makes no sense. Often in fact lol. Especially when you procure staunch.
When people argue over my choice of wording and miss the whole point of what I'm saying, I'm not the one that seems unintelligent in the end. Just saying.
You can use all of the calculations, rethoric you want. It doesn't change the fact they are getting preferential treatment, in the current climate of the game with how competitive it is, it's not a question of wether it can affect the outcome of the scores in AW, or not, but if there is even the slightest chances it might, it should not be allowed.
Sounds to me like you just don't care, well I do, you don't cut me in line.
Ever.
Then I again I live in a 3rd world country so I am more assertive, perhaps y'all don't mind getting cut in line.
Please someone explain to me what the Spanish proverb had to do with the subsequent comment. I see no link
eating cheese on 4 days under grass belies contiguous movement throughout computer time.
did you guys get that? did you understand that i don’t really care whether omni jumps to a another established alliance for a higher war rating. did my words help you understand my point?
eating cheese on 4 days under grass belies contiguous movement throughout computer time.
did you guys get that? did you understand that i don’t really care whether omni jumps to a another established alliance for a higher war rating. did my words help you understand my point?
What you wrote is just gibberish.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
and there is far too much injustice in the universe to worry about that which doesn’t affect you. there isn’t even enough time or energy to address all the injustice that does affect you. are you using a phone that was built in china on cheap labor in inhumane conditions? have you bought a pair of jeans for less than $50, if so you underpaid which is injustice to whoever produced it. are you vegan? if not, there are thousands or tens of thousands of animals who have suffered injustice which ultimately served you. you could go on and on. if you want to be a social justice warrior, that’s fine, but there is not point in virtue signaling or taking a holy attitude about it just because you have decided to focus in a different injustice than other people have focused on. you have no moral superiority for having approached what you perceive as injustice in a different way from the way someone else may have approached a different perceived injustice. just let it be dude. if you try not to judge me, i’ll try not to judge you.
on the other hand, i’m still going to needle grounded wisdom because he is annoying and says stupid things and thinks he sounds smart by referring to his thesaurus, not realizing he sounds like an idiot by using words incorrectly, and gives constantly parroted, banal responses, yet his voice continues to be heard in the forums because he is paid by kabam.
Although I agree with most of what you say, I have to say that (even when worded weirdly) GW his opinion on this matter is in line with mine. What ØMNÎ is doing here is not cheating.
eating cheese on 4 days under grass belies contiguous movement throughout computer time.
did you guys get that? did you understand that i don’t really care whether omni jumps to a another established alliance for a higher war rating. did my words help you understand my point?
What you wrote is just gibberish.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
and there is far too much injustice in the universe to worry about that which doesn’t affect you. there isn’t even enough time or energy to address all the injustice that does affect you. are you using a phone that was built in china on cheap labor in inhumane conditions? have you bought a pair of jeans for less than $50, if so you underpaid which is injustice to whoever produced it. are you vegan? if not, there are thousands or tens of thousands of animals who have suffered injustice which ultimately served you. you could go on and on. if you want to be a social justice warrior, that’s fine, but there is not point in virtue signaling or taking a holy attitude about it just because you have decided to focus in a different injustice than other people have focused on. you have no moral superiority for having approached what you perceive as injustice in a different way from the way someone else may have approached a different perceived injustice. just let it be dude. if you try not to judge me, i’ll try not to judge you.
on the other hand, i’m still going to needle grounded wisdom because he is annoying and says stupid things and thinks he sounds smart by referring to his thesaurus, not realizing he sounds like an idiot by using words incorrectly, and gives constantly parroted, banal responses, yet his voice continues to be heard in the forums because he is paid by kabam.
Although I agree with most of what you say, I have to say that (even when worded weirdly) GW his opinion on this matter is in line with mine. What ØMNÎ is doing here is not cheating.
That was the main point I had. It's a perfectly legal move that was authorized by the owner of the Ally. The Ally, including the Rating, Treasury, and anything else that remains, is up to the discretion of the Leader. If someone wants to give their Ally away, they're allowed to do that. They moved, for whatever reason, and they're allowed to do that. It's not an exploit, or cheating.
eating cheese on 4 days under grass belies contiguous movement throughout computer time.
did you guys get that? did you understand that i don’t really care whether omni jumps to a another established alliance for a higher war rating. did my words help you understand my point?
What you wrote is just gibberish.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
and there is far too much injustice in the universe to worry about that which doesn’t affect you. there isn’t even enough time or energy to address all the injustice that does affect you. are you using a phone that was built in china on cheap labor in inhumane conditions? have you bought a pair of jeans for less than $50, if so you underpaid which is injustice to whoever produced it. are you vegan? if not, there are thousands or tens of thousands of animals who have suffered injustice which ultimately served you. you could go on and on. if you want to be a social justice warrior, that’s fine, but there is not point in virtue signaling or taking a holy attitude about it just because you have decided to focus in a different injustice than other people have focused on. you have no moral superiority for having approached what you perceive as injustice in a different way from the way someone else may have approached a different perceived injustice. just let it be dude. if you try not to judge me, i’ll try not to judge you.
on the other hand, i’m still going to needle grounded wisdom because he is annoying and says stupid things and thinks he sounds smart by referring to his thesaurus, not realizing he sounds like an idiot by using words incorrectly, and gives constantly parroted, banal responses, yet his voice continues to be heard in the forums because he is paid by kabam.
Although I agree with most of what you say, I have to say that (even when worded weirdly) GW his opinion on this matter is in line with mine. What ØMNÎ is doing here is not cheating.
That was the main point I had. It's a perfectly legal move that was authorized by the owner of the Ally. The Ally, including the Rating, Treasury, and anything else that remains, is up to the discretion of the Leader. If someone wants to give their Ally away, they're allowed to do that. They moved, for whatever reason, and they're allowed to do that. It's not an exploit, or cheating.
Comments
I can see how people feel that is scummy, even if perfectly legal, and I can also see how people say they would have been there naturally anyway given enough time.
That's why I say Kabam should have implemented a personal rating that follows the player, and Alliance rating should be the average of all members that participated in the most recent war. Then none of this would have mattered. They could have created a brand new Alliance and started at a rating that was fitting of its members.
And no one would think of doing this on a whim in the middle of a season, because while your rating would be retained using an average of all the members, your points towards the season would start over at zero.
But oh well, too late for that now.
Really, it doesn’t affect you. You’re alliance’s ranking will not be affected. A top 1,000 alliance will still be top 1,000. If you’re the alliance that finishes 1,001 then reality is you should have won one more war.
The alliance in question is loaded with top level players and they will eventually reach tier 1 or tier 2. They will steamroll through tier 4 and tier 3. To make a comparison, most of us are playing in a rec league and they’re trying to win the Super Bowl.
A reaction cannot be too rigid in its convictions. Reactions don't have convictions. Also, that's not what staunch means. A strawman is something else entirely.
Loyal and committed in attitude is what staunch means. The argument that it is exploitative is staunch in this discussion because it is not exploitative and people keep affirming that it is despite the arguments to the contrary. I see the conviction as too rigid. A Strawman could apply because the argument is branching off into other subjects such as Jumpers, selling Allies, and other issues that don't really refute the evidence that it's not an abuse of the system. In any case, my choice of wording may not be the best, but I'm not here to debate that.
#youarewelcome
That could apply. Lol
You should just avoid using “staunch” incorrectly.
If you cannot express your thoughts correctly with the right words, you're not debating anything.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
But more importantly, in general it is not appropriate use of the term to call someone's own support of their own opinions "staunch" because by definition, we always believe what we believe. You can't staunchly support yourself. That's nonsensical. That implies there are people who aren't "staunch" supporters of themselves - that they aren't sure if what they believe is what they believe and aren't loyal to their own position.
That's why saying you find the reactions in this thread to be "staunch" is weird, and borderline meaningless. First because reactions can't be staunch anything, second even people can't be "staunch" they have to be staunch somethings - staunch supporters, staunch advocates, staunch debaters - and third, you can't really be a staunch supporter of yourself, and most people here are voicing their own opinions, not taking up the cause of someone else's.
By using words incorrectly, you are vaguely and ambiguously making difficult to parse allusions. To the extent that your words have any meaning at all, the most reasonable possible meaning someone could infer would be that you're accusing everyone in the thread of specifically supporting one person's viewpoint collectively. I don't think that is what you intended, but how could I possibly know for sure.
People can be staunch supporters of a position. "I find the whole reaction to be staunch" is word salad. That's like saying I find the whole reaction to be tall.
[/quote]
Lol at “word salad”
You're accusing people who won't kowtow to your opinion to be sheep. Can they not afford irony in third world countries?
Not at all. I am mocking your previous statement that since you come from a third world country you somehow have a more assertive viewpoint. I'm also implying a certain amount of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness, and I will admit I did so in a manner that would be self-confirming if true in the latter case.
I will just state directly that repeatedly accusing people of having no spine just because you are unable to convince them you're correct is one of the few behaviors I have no specific qualms about mocking, because it is entirely reprehensible conduct.
It’s not cheating. It’s not an exploit. THEY aware in charge of 2 allies. They all moved to THEIR OWN second ally. People are just mad because they don’t like some of the individuals. I don’t like them either. But this is absurd.
There have been some straw man arguments made throughout these numerous pages. But the examples he used were not.
If you want to focus on what words I used and ignore my main point, that's entirely up to you. I thought you to be more intelligent than that. I have no interest in being perfect, and this entire discussion just mutes what I was saying regardless. If we're resorting to nitpicking over wording then the discussion has spent itself. It's a terribly limited way to think that the only appropriate use of words is the one you hold. Last I checked, English is a free language that contains words with many uses and meanings, and people are free to use them however they see fit to express themselves. Now back to the topic.
You have to learn how to relax. I understand your point of view and that you really enjoy to debate, but you are not playing the same game as the others here. Other people are commenting without a structure and without editing their paragraphs. You are, but it doesn't mean other people do. So, I know it sounds stupid, but you shouldn't keep pushing on grammatical errors or on evolving opinions that contradict themselves. You should, for the most part, just read the latest comment from that person, try to understand why he is saying that, and then you can comment in your style.
But people do not write forum posts in an academic way. It would be nice if they did, but they don't. Your expectations are too high. Let's debate in a way we can change our minds from post to post. You know... fun.
You called anyone who doesn’t agree with you sheep, the classless one is you. Have you ever left your alliance to another? If you did then you didn’t earn the war rating per your logic and have cut in line!
Mutes? Moots?
Mutes. Silences what I was actually saying. I think it's time we worry about our own words. This is getting small-minded and petty. If I type it, that's what I want to say. End of story.
But that's part of the problem. Sometimes what you want to say makes no sense. Often in fact lol. Especially when you procure staunch.
Please someone explain to me what the Spanish proverb had to do with the subsequent comment. I see no link
Pretty stupid since people will save a seat with a jacket or can ask a friend to watch it for them but I gave up trying to argue with that guy.
I like cheese too and I agree.
Although I agree with most of what you say, I have to say that (even when worded weirdly) GW his opinion on this matter is in line with mine. What ØMNÎ is doing here is not cheating.
That was the main point I had. It's a perfectly legal move that was authorized by the owner of the Ally. The Ally, including the Rating, Treasury, and anything else that remains, is up to the discretion of the Leader. If someone wants to give their Ally away, they're allowed to do that. They moved, for whatever reason, and they're allowed to do that. It's not an exploit, or cheating.
I know. For once I completely agree with you.