Summoners, there was an issue with Alliance War matchmaking today preventing Alliances from being able to match with others. As a result, this upcoming war will be cancelled. There should be no detrimental effect to any Alliance's Season performance, and we will be reducing the Alliance War Season Rewards Participation minimum to 4 Wars. We apologize for this inconvenience.

AW Manipulation

1234568

Comments

  • beyonder8421beyonder8421 Posts: 881 ★★★
    Guys, use stubborn instead.
    #youarewelcome
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 29,294 ★★★★★
    Guys, use stubborn instead.
    #youarewelcome

    That could apply. Lol
  • CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I find the whole reaction to be staunch.

    What.

    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.
  • DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I find the whole reaction to be staunch.

    What.

    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.
  • CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    [/quote].

    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”
  • Ace_03 wrote: »
    So now grammar is the issue at hand.

    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?
  • Ace_03 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    So now grammar is the issue at hand.

    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.
  • MattScottMattScott Posts: 587 ★★
    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.
  • MattScottMattScott Posts: 587 ★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »

    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.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 29,294 ★★★★★
    edited February 2018
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I find the whole reaction to be staunch.

    What.

    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.
  • beyonder8421beyonder8421 Posts: 881 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    So now grammar is the issue at hand.

    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.
  • realiTicrealiTic Posts: 96
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    So now grammar is the issue at hand.

    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!
  • CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I find the whole reaction to be staunch.

    What.

    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?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 29,294 ★★★★★
    edited February 2018
    CFree wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I find the whole reaction to be staunch.

    What.

    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.
  • CFreeCFree Posts: 491 ★★
    👍🏾
  • penvro56378penvro56378 Posts: 186
    @Lagacy69 this is so funny
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 7,544 ★★★★★
    CFree wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I find the whole reaction to be staunch.

    What.

    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.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 29,294 ★★★★★
    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.
  • gohard123gohard123 Posts: 925 ★★★
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    We have a saying spanish that goes like this:

    El que se va de villa, pierde su silla.

    He who leaves, loses his chair.

    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
  • SupermanojSupermanoj Posts: 76
    I think his point was they dropped out from a high tier alliance so they lost their placing in that rank 'losing their chair'

    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.
  • VoluntarisVoluntaris Posts: 1,156 ★★★
    Let's say a guy is in highly competitive sumo wrestling at 365 lb's ...
    zero7 wrote: »
    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?

    I like cheese too and I agree. :)
  • MhykkeMhykke Posts: 426 ★★★
    My cat's breath smells like cat food.
  • GwendolineGwendoline Posts: 945 ★★★
    zero7 wrote: »
    Ace_03 wrote: »
    zero7 wrote: »
    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.
This discussion has been closed.