MLG: Not interested. Not even as a spectator.

My logic teacher back in university might have a blast with these statements, since you did make the claim to logic about them. Of course rhetoric can be only a "soft" application of logic but it does have room for "If A then B, A, therefore B" and other such proposal forms.

I assume it might break forum rules to actually email him, if he's bored and has the time to humor a student from a few years back, but one of our homework assignments was to find a political or social statement made in public or on television that made claim to "logic" and send it in for analysis.

You see, as you probably know (since you're doing it so much already), the word is thrown around recklessly because it gives artificial bolstering and a sense of tough, hard authority to opinions, no matter how flakey or subjective. Such as yours.

You'd do well to go away as you said you were quite a few number of posts ago. "last post here" indeed.

Once again you are too afraid of bringing any argument to the table, trying to insult me personaly too now, you're going lower and lower.

It's quite easy to disprove the presence of an invisible pink unicorn in your room, a pouch of flour is all you need.

Maybe you'll say something interesting on your reply, you're getting more and more boring with your trials of personal attacks to avoid the topic

You're trying to derail this thread, which is the only sensible motive I can see to your bluster, chest-beating and small-time name calling, not to mention your habit of attempting to wave a magic wand and turn your opinions into "logic". That might impress 4chan, but it's not very impressive here.

If you'd like some last words or something, proceed. I'd like to wait for someone with a useful contribution, even one I can disagree with that doesn't resort to your level of dimness.

Random "prejudices"? Naw. I know the difference between true talent that is coached to perfectness, and the garden variety...

I can conclude that you've never been to university just reading your previous posts

''Let's ground it and keep it simple: the very people abusing cheesy and uncompetitive mechanics in Nexus (gate camping especially) are supposedly, according to you, the undisputed authorities on how to make these games "balanced" and more importantly fun and playable to a healthy playerbase. Yet these guys say they did nothing wrong, it was all totally legal and they'd totally do it again. Note that it is TECHNICALLY within the rules now but are such win-farmers that they wouldn't dream of having it changed for fairer fights.

Conclusion: No. These guys do not deserve any special recognition or authority. Exceptions always exist, but I refuse to recognize an entire class of people as more "right" than the rest of us because of some damn game statistic abstract.''

where you brought up things i never wrote and claimed them to be my words.

And once again for quite several times already you keep avoiding the main topic of the discussion. I may also conclude that you have no argument and simply gave up trying to fall with a straw fire with your fancy vocabulary.

If you can't do more than personal attacks, then i don't give you higher than high school grade, i might be generous here.

This forum tends to give me blood pressure problems so I try to go here only infrequently. I like to talk about game issues, but then there's disruptive trolls that just like to read their own words flooding the thread.

Like this guy. Shut up about logic already, you have none.

I dont remember Mr. Spock namecalling and talking like bratty gamer back in the 60s.

shall i refer you to a dictionnary again to search for the word prejudice? Or once again you didn't read my post :/

You have nothing useful to add and are only trying to derail the thread, apparently.

Spare us all the "I have logic!!!!!1" self-gratification statements already. No one is impressed.

Do you have anything to add or are you going to continue your circus of self-promotion?

logicreasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

That's nice.

And would you like to give us some examples of it that aren't just opinions you hold very strongly to, about our personal lives, eating habits, or weird mind-read claims like "lol u nevr went 2 colleg!!!1"?

you really love that self-promotion thing don't you?

maybe logic in english for you means something different. I'm not english from first language and for me i see the definition of logic as using principles that you can validate with proofs. If i'm not using the exact word for this, then that might be a misunderstanding on my part. What i'm trying to say is i base my arguments on thoughts that can be verified through statistics, researches and analysis. Maybe i'm not using the right word

OED or Webster's? Since it'll be difficult to find the full "potention" in any of those "dictionnarys".

So, Yuukikun...meow, meow, m-e-o-w...

I started talking like this because you did first, yes i should not have stood down to that level, but i thought you'd understand better this way, since you started doing so first.

potention? what is that word? did i typo potential in a previous post?

"YOU DID IT FIRST WAAAAAAAAH" is only as logical as defenses used when a playground supervisor breaks up a grade school yard fight.

Then again, I can't expect much more from you at this point. But thanks for the bump. I'll wait for a useful poster to continue this if they like.

Even at this point I believe there are people that can disagree with me and I can still have a good discussion, as long as they're not you.

I wasn'T trying to defend myself (i admitted my mistake). You should reread my post, and why don't you try saying your argument once so we can restart from scratch and concentrate on the topic only this time?

The moment that you start calling folks prejudiced for their views it went from a general disagreement in what MLG is promoting, and character assassinating. That's when the thread was derailed.

Want to talk about the merits and demerits of MLG, stick with MLG and what it is/isn't promoting, not directly attacking people itself.

I felt like reviewing what i read in your comment on this reply at random. I put the things in red as things you say i said that i actually never did, in green the things i agree with you, and in blue my own comments

What SOE needs to listen to is bug fixes and somewhat decent balancing, not turning the game into what's seen in WoW with endless rage threads about balance. Decent balancing is if one faction gets XYZ perk, the other faction gets ABC perk. Not trying to balance the 1000000000001 weapons itself. That was the problem in BF3, too many weapons to even try to balance. Any tweaking that needs to go on is the advantages/disadvantages factions offer, so players will choose a faction for what they like to play. If too many goto 1 faction, tweak the other faction with an overall buff to balance the equation (this actually should be dynamic, if the faction numbers dwindle [XP bonuses isn't enough, especially to end-gamers] the overall firepower/accuracy is increased to help, if it's 50+% the buff is gone). That way folks aren't just jumping from faction to faction chasing the FoTM carrot.