Talk: Auron of Neon

Friday

19

April

11:40 UTC

Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

first

for eternities!! — Warw/Wick 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because he totally didn't archive on Sept. 21 and there's been no time for anyone else to post first :P --Shadowcrest 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

:/ -Auron 04:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

:/

^ --Shadowcrest 06:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate you because you're always right

Header. (T/C) 06:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Have fun. Demote me when whenever kyle gets back. -Auron 07:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you guys are leaving me as the only Bcrat left? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What prediction of Auron's would the header be referring to? --◄mendel► 18:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the time he was wrong about Expert's Dexterity staying in the meta post-nerf. Auron wasn't always right. INB4 old comments. 68.58.91.59 05:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what?

I defy you. I don't care if you're right. I don't care if promoting Mendel was a stupid idea. I don't care if it leads to the detriment of the Wiki. If we are going to crash, then I want to go out in style, doing things my way and following my heart. That may sound stupid and illogical to you, but that's too bad. If you want to QQ and rage from the wiki, then it's just that much more convenient for me, since it saves me the trouble of demoting you anyway.

You're one of the smartest and most logical people that I have ever met. More than anyone else in my life, you have been proven right countless time and time again. I still bow to your superiority in so many aspects, and I will forever treasure the lessons I have learned under your tutorship. You have been invaluable in, quite simply, teaching me to be a better person.

Nevertheless, the simple fact is that you are often abrasive, unnecessarily rude, and you continue to be a divider instead of a uniter for the Wiki community. Most of the users here do not like you; they respect you for your abilities, which is completely different. Of course, you're not here to make friends and could care less. "The truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?" Yes, it does. But no matter how right you are, that does not give you a permanent excuse for being a dick just for the lolz. It's one thing to bash idiots on the Smiter's Boon talkpage; it's another to randomly pop on IRC and ask my sysops if they "usually suck each other off so much" (just to name one example). GuildWiki is not IRC, but that still affects the community here.

Thus, even though it matters not now, I'd like to tell you that I was going to remove you from Bureaucrat anyway. It was a mistake to promote you, I believe. The only truly bureaucratic actions that you have taken in your career was to promote R. Phalange, and that was also a mistake with resounding impacts on the wiki.

So...have fun, and enjoy yourself on GWW/GW2W/PvX. I'm sorry things had to end like this. (T/C) 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth, I do not oppose Entropy's promotion of mendel, and if I felt GuildWiki need more sysops, I would probably end up being supportive of Mendel as a candidate. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

YAY ENTROPY IS BACK! — Warw/Wick 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm... very happy now. You've finally done it. Unfortunately, this wiki is already dead, and isn't going to get better. I just hope the things I've taught you will help you better serve GW2W. -Auron 23:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as I'm here, this wiki will never be dead. —Dr Ishmael 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Proclaiming a wiki dead when its content is still expanding is akin to calling you dead because one day you're going to die. --◄mendel► 00:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, there are multiple definitions for "deadness" for a wiki. GuildWiki, and even GWW, can very well be already dead according to some definitions while alive in others. Disagreeing over whether an ambiguous adjective applies is relatively futile. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For the nothing that my comment is worth I see no signs of death in this wiki while we still have the crazy antics of a long list of people of whom we all know. There will always be things to do here. Content will expand. Vandals will be vandals. GuildWikians will be GuildWikians. We'll find ways to breathe life into it if we so choose. 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

lol -Auron 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I has a sad. 00:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This wiki is actually dying tbh.. — Warw/Wick 00:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but I wanted to be poetic about it. 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We're not dying, we're just... using up our life in order to empower future wikis.Entrea [Talk] 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you are correct as usual, Auron. But, I choose to delay the inevitable rather than give up and call it quits. That's no fun. GW2W is a ghost wiki right now anyways; I'm not going anywhere near there till there's some real content worth overseeing. Actually, I may not bother to go at all; a year is a long time, and I am still uncertain about if I'll even play GW2W. If not, then there's no point me wasting my time on a wiki for it. (T/C) 01:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Balistic Pve is pretty much running things over there now. I'd be quite happy to give you ownership of the wiki, Entropy, if you wanted. I'm terrible at managing things, especially time. :\. — Warw/Wick 01:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

??? Unless Balistic Pve goes by a different name on GW2W, or this is some mysterious socked post, I have no idea what you are talking about. (T/C) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

She's talking about GuildWiki2, the wikia version. 01:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lolsorry, Entrea's link linked to gw2wikia :P — Warw/Wick 01:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh...that. As far as I am concerned, GuildWiki 2 does not exist. >.> (T/C) 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about gw2w either. Just in the two and a half years I've known wikis, I've seen a bunch of great editors come and go - I'm thinking we're going to lose more than we find before gw2w gets started.
Like you, I don't know what I'll be doing in two years. I might be holed up in Afghanistan, doing tech work for the army. I might still be here in hawaii, doing music or whatever. GW2 might suck, at which point I would promote someone early and stop contributing. There are too many maybes on GW2W to make it worth any time or effort so far. I wish ANet hadn't created it this early tbh. -Auron 01:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We wish alike. (T/C) 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Death?

Dear Auron,

This wiki is not "dying." A "dead" wiki is not one with a dwindling userbase or even with no edits on a day-to-day basis, but one that has been abandoned before completion. We here at GuildWiki are working towards completion. We acknowledge that the day will come when there is no longer anything to add. We know that GuildWiki will last only as long as Guild Wars does. But this is not something to be delayed or avoided. This, ladies and gentlemen, is our ultimate goal! We want to create the most complete documentation of the game known as Guild Wars. We are all partners, working together to complete a project. Yes, people will inevitably grow weary and leave, but new users will come to pick up the slack! This is the beauty of the wiki format. People who have never met but share a vision can come together from across the world to work toward a common goal. I look forward to the day this wiki is finished. I want to stand back with all my friends and look at what we've created. This wiki is more than just the content of Guild Wars- it is a project that has united the hearts and minds of every person who has ever shared his time here. And that is something that cannot die. 01:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. -Auron 01:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We will, tyvm. —Dr Ishmael 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seconded in full. 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What Auron said. (sorry guys) (T/C) 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is dead. Its no secret :| — Warw/Wick 01:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with a number of things Felix wrote, and from that aspect, I can be said to agree with Entropy/Auron. On the other hand, Felix did at least state one definition/metric on what it means for a wiki to be "dead". Thus, even though I disagree with the definition and a number of other things Felix has written in that post, it is the post in the most constructive direction among everything written over the past 48 hours related to the topic/question of "GuildWiki is dead". I encourage anyone who has anything else to say to also try to be constructive, there's not much point in a simple head count in who agrees/disagrees with whom on this particular matter. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

/headcount I completely agree with you Felix. The point of a wiki is to document. Not to get the most users, the most activity from users, or the friendliest userbase. A dwindling userbase doesn't mean it's dying, it means it's growing more slowly. The wiki will only be dead when there are no more vandals to revert, no more information to add, no more touch-ups or stylistic changes to make, and no users left to contribute. Call it what you want, but for me, UNTIL THAT DAY, this wiki is alive as it's ever been.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 07:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Dream Will Never Die , kthx. Don't mind me playing devil's advocate, but you come off sounding like you are in denial. As long as there is "something" left to do, the wiki isn't "dead". Yet this is a rather nebulous goal, and in fact you can infinitely find things to do such that there is still something to do. It's a self perpetuating cycle.

Also, wb Marco. (T/C) 07:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care if you think I'm in denial or whatever. I choose to see the glass half-full, and I'm really do feel bad for you if you actually have a PROBLEM with optimism. Also, wtb definition for wb-- (Talk) (Contr.) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back. I have a problem with blind optimism unless it is acknowledged as such (e.g. myself) :) (T/C) 07:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah thank you. My wiki-drama senses were tingling. And that's just my viewpoint. Take it or leave it, I don't really think that what we've created here over the years could possible "die."-- (Talk) (Contr.) 07:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Look through some wikis listed at GuildWiki:Languages#Wikis_about_Guild_Wars to find out what actual dead wikis look like (especially some Wikia wikis). And don't feed the trolls. --◄mendel► 08:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a dead wiki for a dead game. GuildWiki/Guild Wars may not be as alive as they once were, but they are far from dead. —Dr Ishmael 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's an empty wiki RC for a game that failed and never had a userbase to begin with. They don't begin to compare. Our RC is about the same, however, in terms of meaningful edits. -Auron 14:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For curiosity sake, what is/was Fury supposed to be, and why did it fail? </irrelevant> (T/C) 14:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fury was supposed to be the ultimate PvP MMO, with the main feature being out-of-the-box UAX (abilities, armor, weapons, absolutely everything unlocked). This led to a huge section of the GW PvP community highly anticipating it, so it was dubbed the "Guild Wars killer". It failed for a number of reasons, including technical issues, but the main thing seems to be that their UAX backfired - no unlocking meant absolutely no sense of progression, and the huge learning curve required to figure out the vast pool of abilities turned away a lot of potential players. —Dr Ishmael 15:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So? That just reinforces my point that it's a dead game - dead on arrival, true, but that's still dead. And bringing Felix's points back up, how would you expect us to have a high number of "meaningful edits" when we've already documented 99% of the game? There's a difference between a wiki being inactive because there's very little new content that can be added, and a wiki being dead when there's still content that should be added. —Dr Ishmael 15:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For practical purposes, inactivity is equivalent to death. (T/C) 15:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Depending on your definition of "dead", I suppose. Auron's absurdly high standards apparently require 100+ "meaningful" mainspace edits per day in order to not be dead. Most of the rest of us, including myself and Felix, won't consider the wiki to be dead until the last admin leaves and locks the door(/database) behind them. —Dr Ishmael 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that none of us have the ability to lock the database anyway, it's a moot point. Also I'd like to think that something like ten meaningful edits per day is nice. (T/C) 16:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole argument is silly. It would take most people quite a while to find ANYTHING in Guild Wars that ISN'T in this wiki. Eventually, there won't be /any/ meaningful information to be added... Simply expand and clarify as much as you can, if you enjoy doing so, if not... Don't? But don't complain about it. 199.107.200.110 05:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

PvP. (T/C) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

I have formed a theory of what your goal was as Bureaucrat, and why you resigned; I am posting this here because I'd like to know how far off the mark (or not) I am.

I think you wanted to promote no-nonsense wiki-editing. In a reply on the RfB page you criticise spamming RC with bullshit best left to instant messaging programs. I think you promoted Pling/brains12/R.Phalange to try and curb that and get the wiki back from being about the users to being about the game again (overexaggerated).

My impression of you is that you are an "ideas man", relying on others to actually implement the suggestion/plan. If I recall that right, it went that way with the builds wipe/PvX (but I may be mistaken), and I do recall that it worked that way with protecting Izzy's talkpage over on GWW.

The only support you had on GW was Pling; Gem and Ereanor might've supported you, but they were too inactive; DE worked on policies some, as did JR, but not much came of it.

You saw the promotion of me, my ideals being quite different from yours, or, as you would probably say it, me not getting the wiki, as a sign that your drive to "reform" the wiki had ultimately failed, and thus you resigned and proposed the death of a wiki that would no longer be able to attract wikidragons.

Is that about right? --◄mendel► 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't mention me in that entire post, and therefore you are automatically wrong. Nice try, though. (T/C) 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's because I have no idea if you did anything to support the cause mentioned, other than promoting Auron. And doing challenges and such. --◄mendel► 03:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Challenges encouraged empty RC bullshit spam. o_O But, I never feed trolls and I don't read spam. (T/C) 03:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When did I become important?reanor 04:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

When you evolved into Che. 04:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mostly correct. My goal wasn't a "no-nonsense" wiki environment, it was a "less-nonsense-than-was-on-the-wiki-at-that-time" wiki environment. Back then, warwick's, ruricu's, and Razi's talk pages were getting spammed more than work was being done. I'm okay with a 50-50 ratio - you do some work, you do some talk. You do a lot of work, you are afforded a lot of talk. I wasn't okay with "you do no work, but you talk all day" as the standard for pretty much every single editor that was active.
The rest is spot on - I had always wanted to be a sysop here, but I had never cared to be a bureaucrat. Entropy's promotion enabled me, as you stated, but it wasn't the cause of anything. Good work, mendel. Your studying paid off. -Auron 15:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming. --◄mendel► 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you meant Ruricu? Even including his single archive, his talk page has far less activity than, say, Talk:Vanquisher. 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs moar Hawaiian Islands. Anyway, if you didn't ever want the job Auron, don't offer to take it -_- (T/C) 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not my style :p -Auron 05:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ADMIN-N

This user will never become an admin, nor will she accept any nominations for the position.

^I had that on my page for almost a year, so I guess I take after you. :p (T/C) 06:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Votes suck

I'm letting the next bureaucrat be decided with a <poll>, and then I'm going to pick someone else just for shits. (T/C) 23:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

And for added kicks, promote me too! --R Phalange 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you'd been demoted, but I can arrange that. (T/C) 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PLing for Bcrat! --◄mendel► 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. 02:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. (T/C) 06:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered that that is a "permanent" change so you'll have to request it formally. Sorry. (T/C) 06:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ehh .. ? I haven't been demoted. --R Phalange 13:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to be? --◄mendel► 14:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"And for added kicks, promote me too!" implied that you wanted sysop. But you're already sysop so I'd have to demote you and then promote you again. I didn't understand that you were talking about bcrat. Mendel is faster than me, though his density far exceeds mine. (T/C) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad joke is bad, I guess. --R Phalange 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

GW:NPA

Please refrain from personal attacks such as on Tenetke's talk; you know GW:NPA and you will be banned next time. --◄mendel► 12:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, fuck you. He's a stupid shit, and instead of containing his stupidity to userspace, he tries to spread it on talk pages. My post was a request to get him to stop, since stupidity without limits is a very bad thing. You can use your role as sysop to defend stupidity and let it flourish or you can use it to raise the bar - up to you. But don't pretend like you're doing the wiki a favor by banning me when I'm just playing the role of captain obvious. -Auron 13:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, posting he's a stupid shit as reply to that warning would quite probably be a violation of your proposed "don't be stupid" policy as well, and the only thing that's holding me back from blocking right now is that I want a second opinion. --◄mendel► 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion. Whether or not the person you're attacking actually is stupid is not the issue here, Auron, though I'm fairly sure you already know that. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 15:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for three days for the aforementioned reason. --◄mendel► 15:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been unblocked because I do not think the original offense merited a block. Response here is borderline but I claim provocation/slippery slopeism.

That being said, you know this isn't GWW. Reality doesn't apply here so people will call you out for such stuff. (T/C) 06:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

It is a little late, but I thought I would take the time to address your comments on my user page. I will use your user page, because you were so kind as to use mine. I don't really care what you have to say about me. In an attempt to learn a little more about you I read several pages, and most of them were by entropy expressing how "good" your posts are, and how the "older" members of the wiki respect your contributions. Your posts mostly seem to be finding ways to insult someone, or else complaining that the wiki is "dead". I fail to see how those are worthy of respect, but that isn't the point.

The point is that what I gave was an opinion. Opinions are easily given, and should usually be taken just as easily. They are not fact, they are not binding statements, just opinions. I think you should learn this. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists an opinion as:

<code>    opin·ion Listen to the pronunciation of opinion
Pronunciation:
    \ə-ˈpin-yən\ 
Function:
    noun 
Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
Date:
    14th century

1 
a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter 
b: approval , esteem
2 
a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge 
b: a generally held view
3 
a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert 
b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based</code>

as taken from Here.

My opinion would fall under the category of section 2, subsection A. I assume the reasons for this are pretty obvious, but judging from your past I will not assume that. I will explain in detail. Section 1, subsection A: is a reference to a approval, or esteem. My opinion on the matter of a skill would not fall under either. I would have no way of "approval" of a skill, nor would I hold one in esteem. You can look both of those words up at the link provided above to understand what I mean. Now Section 2, subsection A: This is the part that would hold to what I gave. I will explain both parts of the definition. The first part is that "the opinion" is a belief stronger than impression. I will only list definition Section 1, subsection A of the word impression. The other parts you can look up.

<code>1 a: a characteristic, trait, or feature resulting from some influence</code>

The particular characteristic, trait, or feature need not be a strong, or even an accurate influence. The next part is that "the opinion" is less strong than positive knowledge. I hope I do not have to explain that one. Though if requested I will. Section 2, subsection B: I am me, and I almost never agree with generally held views. Section 3, subsection A: My opinions were in no way formal. Also I am not now, and hopefully never will be an expert on anything in the GuildWars game. Section 3, subsection B: Another self explanatory one.

I hope that after reading the above you will now understand the difference between an opinion, and a fact. I honestly do not see how someone that can not have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks, can be held in such high regard by the older members of this wiki. I had once thought this wiki was a place where people could exchange ideas, and opinions. That even if they didn't agree, things would not become personal. I have to thank you for at least showing me how wrong I was. Tenetke MekkoMy Talk Page 08:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

you're bad at the game. that is fact. your opinions, therefore, are pretty much worthless when talking about game mechanics that require pretty deep understanding of every facet of balance. you can think palm strike is balanced, but until you've actually played the game on a serous level, you have no idea what you're talking about.

you are perfectly titled to having your own opinion about things. however, if your opinions stem from a lack of experience playing the game (past, y'know, pve), they will be faulty based on the fact that they are built on an incorrect premise. palm strike might be balanced for pve - but nobody cares. In PvP, where balance matters because it's a competitive game, palm strike is not okay. -Auron 08:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

GW:YAV, amirite? Why are you so abrasive? Do you treat people with the same sort of disrespect in person? Ignorance is not a crime. — Powersurge360 08:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways I could have handled a reply. I could do it your way and point out the many, many mistakes you made in your post. I could not even understand some of it. I am perfectly titled ? No, I won't fall into that trap. We both have opinions, you have yours and I have mine. I just hope one day you can learn the difference between an opinion and a fact. You may not believe me, but when you get older and get a job you will have to be around people with other opinions. They will sometimes clash with yours, and you will have to learn how to deal with that and move on to accomplish goals. Tenetke MekkoMy Talk Page 08:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted this on Felix's talk page, but I feel like repeating myself here.

Voltaire says: I don't care how wrong you are, I will still defend your right to hold that opinion. That's a fine and lofty ideal, but taken to its extreme it leads to things like CP. Moreover, (now I am generalizing, and not referencing any particular incident/issue) if a person continues to hold an opinion even though it is repeatedly proven wrong, through facts, through rhetoric, through arguments on principle, through mathematics and statistics... then they are a fool. They are free to hold their wrongheaded opinion - I have nothing against Creationists being that way, for example - but they should not be surprised if no one takes them seriously anymore, and even devalues their opinions on other unrelated matters.

YAV says, in essence, that all users have the same rights to edit regardless of their wiki age, experience, etc. - they have the same clout as anyone else. It also states that deprecating yourself is frowned upon. I'm not entirely sure how it is relevant here. Auron says that Tenetke's opinions are wrong/founded on a faulty premise, which doesn't seem to relate to the policy... if he had said instead "you are incompetent so you shouldn't be allowed to post" then that would be different.

By default, an "opinion" can not be right or wrong if it is truly an opinion, because it is a belief instead of a fact. Facts can be proved right or wrong. Opinions like "Warriors have ugly armor" can't be. The issue with discussing game balance is that opinions and facts tend to mix, so people who end up defending their beliefs about balance are offended at being told they are "wrong", because how can a belief be factually incorrect? The problem is that most things of game balance deal with facts, and people confuse that with opinions. So for example, you can hold the "opinion" that Mark of Insecurity is perfectly balanced; but you'd be wrong. (T/C) 08:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is "you're terrible at understanding game balance; i would recommend not commenting on it at all" any different from "you are incompetent so you shouldn't be allowed to post"? Because to me, they seem very much like the same thing. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 12:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

They are the same thing; I have warned Auron about that, and so would have Entropy (see my talk). Where we disagreed was about banworthiness of Auron's followup.

While I'm at it, Auron says here, in essence: "I am right because I am better than you at PvP", and GW:YAV prohibits saying "I am right because I am better than you at wiki." I'm not commenting on truth as a social construct, because that'd be a WoT and offtopic here. --◄mendel► 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Tenetke: What Entropy said above is correct; an opinion only is an opinion if it cannot be proven. Palm Strike, by many PvPers, has been proven to be OP due to its low recharge. That being said, don't stop posting just because of Auron. You are valuable, even if some people believe otherwise.

While I don't believe that Auron's original response was violating GW:NPA (borderline at most) his response to the warning did warrant a block, but perhaps not as long as mendel gave him (1 day is enough for that). Cress Arvein 15:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

the block was fine, go away ppls

new messages thingie is annoying when i'm trying to read -Auron 15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

.

Really? I mean...really?

tl;dr You're not doing anyone any good by posting shit like that. Pointless trolling is a bannable offense. :< The good news is, we're not the elite fellatio service, so at least your posts will remain for all of posterity to read. <3

(T/C) 15:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

don't make me pull out and oozy. -Auron 15:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Playing favorites isn't good. 98.226.112.109 22:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since playing by the rules doesn't work.

I can think of several options you are left which, so which one are you referring to? --◄mendel► 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The stricken text referred to a post of Tenetke's which he has since retracted. I hope we'll get the argument back, but on a reasonable track, playing by the rules, as it were. :-P --◄mendel► 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Originally I had posted something mean, in similar manner to yourself. After talking with mendel though I agree that your point wasn't to be mean. In your own way you are trying to educate people. I was attempting much the same when I posted to you the differences in opinions and facts. So I decided instead to reply to your post in the hopes that we could have a rational discussion. It isn't a very high hope, and I seriously doubt it is possible. Still I will give it a try.

You don't know the difference between being good at the game and being bad at the game. Being bad means your opinions are completely worthless, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Being good means you have the experience playing the game in a competitive environment and can comment on balance from that educated viewpoint.

Since there are multiple aspects of the game, a person can be good at one point, and bad at another. As a social game a person can be entirely good at all of the skill aspects of the game, and yet still be a bad player.

I know the different between fact and opinion. Obviously not.

Everything you say is opinion, and it is worthless because it is uneducated - because you are bad at the game. Everything I say is an opinion, and because of that it isn't bad or good in this context. I am educated, though I will not discuss nor argue that point with someone like you. When you say something like you are uneducated you have to provide a clear context for that. Saying you are uneducated because you are bad at the game. is not clear. Now if you were to say you are uneducated at pvp in guildwars, and this is evidenced by your lack of pvp knowledge I would again agree with you. Sometimes misunderstandings can be cleared up by simply wording things in the correct context.

If you stated things like "frenzy is the best warrior skill in the game" it would be fact, but you're not even close - you're trying to tell people to counter palm strike with "can't touch this." That would not be a fact at all. It would be an opinion. Please if you want to have an intelligent conversation learn the difference. Also I am not telling anyone to do anything. I listed them as ways a person might counter the skill in question.

You've obviously never tried using "can't touch this" against palm strike in any serious arena. On this you are entirely correct. Take not though that I never stated I had used this defense at all.

Now, before you go off and try to rant about me being a hypocrite, learn English. I hope that is a joke.

Then learn how to play - that way, your opinions are worth something, because they will be supported by empirical evidence and experience Do you have any idea what empirical evidence means in this regard? If so then I must ask what are your methods for direct and/or direct observation as it relates to reality? What were your methods for gaining empirical data? Still I am willing to say that you have far more experience than I do in pvp. I don't think that fact is in question.

Your list of information regarding the counters I listed was pretty much dead on. Here is the part you aren't understanding. Even though most of those are trash, they are still counters to the skill. That was my only point regarding them. It was never that Palm Strike is a weak skill. I have said that it is over powered. It was never that everyone can counter them. In a balanced game everything has a counter, but not everyone can counter everything. It was simply that there are ways to counter the skill. They might be trash, they might suck but they still exist. What you are not seeing is that I am not saying how good they are. I don't think they are good. I only cared if they existed and I listed them. You did not seem to get any of that. What you saw is what you wanted to see. If you had bothered reading, or even asking me you would have found we agree on most things. Unfortunately you went straight to attacks, and bypassed reasoning. If you want to have a reasonable conversation, I am all for that. If on the other hand you want to continue attacks, well I will just ignore you from this point on.

Also you should know that I think everyone is a hypocrite to some degree, including myself. So don't take that personally. Still I could have written it up better. So there you have my response, and I hope you can respond without resorting to cussing or your usual antics. Tenetke Mekko My Talk 04:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm noticing that both you and Auron have a very different definition of the gray area between fact and opinion. I'll take Entropy's definition from a few topics above: an opinion only is an opinion if it cannot be proven.

This skill is only overpowered to people who don't know how to play against it. This skill is not hard to get around. Sorry but that is the sad truth. -You stated that you thought the skill was balanced in this quotation. Your wording in the counters you posted also gave me the impression that you expected people to use these counters.

In a balanced game everything has a counter, but not everyone can counter everything. It was simply that there are ways to counter the skill. -I completely agree with you, and I believe Auron would as well. The problem here is GW isn't balanced, period. Cress Arvein 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

True, GW is not balanced. It turns out the balanced issue is because of the way I was using the term. Surprisingly me and Entropy talked about it, or at least it was mentioned. PS is balanced, in the same way all other op skills are balanced. I have stated on skill pages that I thought ps was over powered. I think that a good amount of skills in GW are overpowered though. I don't see how you can avoid it with issues like powercreep though. Tenetke Mekko My Talk 15:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To prevent the same thing from happening this discussion is not about palm strike. It is about the differences between facts and opinions. So to save us all the trouble I will post the definition here.

Main Entry

fact

Pronunciation

\ˈfakt\

Function

noun

Etymology

Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere

Date

15th century

 

1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b: crime accessory after the fact c archaic : action 2 archaic : performance , doing 3: the quality of being actual : actuality a question of fact hinges on evidence 4 a: something that has actual existence space exploration is now a fact b: an actual occurrence prove the fact of damage 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

Sections 1,2 are not part of the discussion for obvious reasons. 3,and 4 are going to require more exploration into actuality and what constitutes reality. 5 being the one that is most pure but often not used because it requires thought. I will give the definition of actual

Main Entry

ac·tu·al

Pronunciation

\ˈak-ch(ə-w)əl, -sh(ə-w)əl; -chü-əl, -shü-\

Function

adjective

Etymology

Middle English actuel, from Late Latin actualis, from Latin actus act

Date

14th century

 

1obsolete : active 2 a: existing in act and not merely potentially b: existing in fact or reality actual and imagined conditions c: not false or apparent actual costs 3: existing or occurring at the time : current caught in the actual commission of a crime

Sections 1 and 3 are of no use to the discussion. So it will be section 2. For section 2 it requires a definition of reality also. That definition is a bit different, we will have to settle on objective, subjective, or a mixture of both. Tenetke Mekko My Talk 15:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(fixed formatting of dictionary entries; why not just link them next time?) This discussion is already under way on User talk:Tenetke; why not continue there? --◄mendel► 15:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, and that is fine because the discussion there is cool. I was actually hoping to get Auron interested in the discussion. It is fine if he isn't interested. Also I didn't post the links alone because I wanted people to be able to have the definitions right there so to speak, though it is probably a better idea anyway. Tenetke Mekko My Talk 02:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Bias: If a sysop can't access his feelings, it doesn't mean he doesn't have any. --◄mendel► 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You know Nightfall was released after factions, right?

Because your edit with Golgo doesn't make any sense at all. I see you reverted yourself and all, I hope it was just a joke edit. Still a joke edit is an edit. Talk 08:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize factions had no community references. Also, ANet has no qualms about renaming old NPCs after current community members, so your point is entirely moot.

I reverted myself because I thought the edit was on GWW - I was working on tagging all the NPCs named after community members. Also, glad to see you haven't gained an ounce of brainpower since the last time you made the mistake of commenting to me - what was it then? Your inability to understand basic concepts like "viable" and "metagame?" Keep at it, you amuse me as much as Mtew does. -Auron 04:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)