The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Tanoomba · Aug 30, 2015

Khalid: "Yeah, you said the same about alot of posters (and did, including myself) before they had to deal with 2 years of your lies and repeated claims of moral superiority. Like you write all that for claiming I lied about your entire stance that thread. However, please, go back to your "top 50 times I lied about you" list before you pretended to put me on ignore. It was amusing at least, to see you categorize everything I say about you as a lie, while redefining words over and over to make sure to "prove" Anita isn't even misrepresenting anything.

Anyway, I like Chaos too after all, he is good people. Just he is arguing the quite obvious point that you have been denying for over a year. I just hate to see someone banging their head against the same wall that has bruised so many other good brains."

That's the second time in 2 posts you accuse me of dishonesty without backing it up with anything.

You also continue to avoid facing your own PROVEN lie.

What's the matter, Khal? I'm not going to get punished for dragging this out in here. You're going to have to fess up and explain yourself.
Quit going off on tangents with more irrelevant and baseless claims. I caught you in a lie and PROVED it. What, you think if you continue to ignore it it'll just go away? Stop being a coward.

hodj · Aug 30, 2015

We already cited an entire thread where you've done nothing but lie for over a year.

You're well aware of the record here.

The very fact you're DENYING your dishonesty is evidence of your dishonesty.

khalid · Aug 30, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
Quit going off on tangents with more irrelevant and baseless claims. I caught you in a lie and PROVED it.

No you didn't. Lying by saying I lied over and over again doesn't prove your case. Just like saying Anita wasn't talking about Hitman while she was talking about Hitman doesn't prove that we are lying about Anita.

You can masturbate to your pedantic defenses all you want, but there is a reason why you have to stick to this thread or you get RRPed. That is because you are almost as dishonest as Lumie and people are sick of arguing the same fucking points with you.

hodj · Aug 30, 2015

If you weren't so egotistical and butthurt about getting your ass pummeled so hard in this community based on your own facile pseudo-intellectualism, Tanoomba, you'd just man the fuck up and stop posting here.

But you just can't let it go. You just cannot get over the fact that you've never been intellectually up to the task of being a respected member of this community.

Its your dishonesty with yourself that is most damning of all.

Tanoomba · Aug 30, 2015

Khalid: "No you didn't. Lying by saying I lied over and over again doesn't prove your case. Just like saying Anita wasn't talking about Hitman while she was talking about Hitman doesn't prove that we are lying about Anita.

You can masturbate to your pedantic defenses all you want, but there is a reason why you have to stick to this thread or you get RRPed. That is because you are almost as dishonest as Lumie and people are sick of arguing the same fucking points with you."

Let me get this straight: I provided solid conclusive evidence that you lied, and somehow that doesn't count because of your feels? And I'm the dishonest one here? Give me a fucking break, Khal.

You have accused me many times of ignoring evidence. You've never backed it up with an instance of me ignoring evidence, but you've certainly been generous with the accusation. And now you're just going to ignore evidence like it's nothing? Just flippantly wave facts away as if they didn't objectively prove you wrong? WOW. That is FANTASTICALLY hypocritical.

Here's the post where I BEGIN my explanation with the OPEN admission I was wrong:
http://www.rerolled.org/showthread.php?5742-Butthurt-white-guys-an-Asian-virgin-and-an-angry-lesbian-walk-into-a-bar&p=749217&viewfull=1#post749217

The line in question:
"Full disclosure: I was wrong when I started off saying that consent couldn't be given when drunk. That might be campus policy, but it's not law."

There's no way to "misunderstand" this, Khal. I admitted I was wrong. And, because there was some confusion, I clarified here:
http://www.rerolled.org/showthread.php?5742-Butthurt-white-guys-an-Asian-virgin-and-an-angry-lesbian-walk-into-a-bar&p=749773&viewfull=1#post749773
and then again here:
http://www.rerolled.org/showthread.php?5742-Butthurt-white-guys-an-Asian-virgin-and-an-angry-lesbian-walk-into-a-bar&p=753669&viewfull=1#post753669
and again later, here:
http://www.rerolled.org/showthread.php?6488-GamerGate-and-Zoe-Quinn-Bait&p=993261&viewfull=1#post993261
... etc, etc.

So I think it could be honestly said by any objective observer that I did my due diligence in being open and honest about being wrong about something. Do you have a problem up to this point, Khalid? I think the evidence being presented is more than conclusive in showing that I did admit I was wrong. Can you acknowledge this please? I know you're going to try to pull a Hodj and claim it isn't relevant to what you're saying and you're not legally obligated to answer, but it's super-relevant to what I'm saying. If you're going to crow about how important it is to base your claims on facts and back up those facts with evidence, you owe it to me to acknowledge my evidence. At least fucking acknowledge that you can read words and that yes, I openly admitted I was wrong.

Let's get past this before we can move on.

hodj · Aug 30, 2015

You also think just allowing someone to shoot someone in a video game is actively encouraging them to do so.

What you think has no foundation in reality. That's why Khalid doesn't bother actually trying to discuss issues with you anymore.

Note that he just said this about 3 posts up.

If you had an ounce of self respect you'd just go ahead and recognize that fact

But if you had an ounce of self respect you wouldn't still be here doing this

Tanoomba · Aug 30, 2015

Kriptini: "To be fair, you guys started attacking Tanoomba before he even started posting this time.

Also to be fair, Tanoomba, you shouldn't have responded to most of those posts. That's like if I were to respond to any post directed at me in the Religion thread. The battle's over before it even begins lol"

Yeah, I get it. I was just trying to direct the stream of shitposting away from the mainstream, but I suppose if I speak at all I'm inviting some kind of smarmy response. Implicitly, perhaps.

hodj · Aug 30, 2015

"I was just trying to direct the stream of shitposting away from the mainstream"

Oh look, an accidental moment of honesty from Moon Bat.

He was trying to defend mainstream media because that's all he does. He tries to defend people who don't deserve, and shouldn't be, defended.

chaos · Aug 30, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
Chaos: "Tanoomba, the goal of these sandbox games is to simulate the real world to the extent possible. You say "real life is not a video game" but if the design of the game is approached from this standpoint, how can you say that in one scenario it is not "implicitly encouraged" and in another it is? Just because a thing is possible does not mean you are encouraged to do it, implicitly or explicitly, real life or video game."

I disagree from your very first statement. The goal of sandbox games is not to "simulate the real world to the extent possible". In fact, it's damn near the opposite. Sandbox games create an idealized and fantastical caricature of things we know about "real life". There are a million things sandbox games could do to be more realistic but would compromise their entertainment value. Video games are supposed to be fun, we play them to ESCAPE real life. If your character had to stop to take shit every few hours, that might be more realistic but it wouldn't be more fun. Heck, even GTA lets you break traffic rules directly in front of the cops with no consequences, not because they couldn't implement getting pulled over for going through a red light, but because it's more important to be able to speed around the city (from a gameplay perspective) than have realistic cop behavior. Heck, do you think getting "wasted" in a hail of gunfire and explosions, only to wake up in front of a hospital none the worse for wear is realistic?

When we play video games, WE KNOW WE ARE PLAYING VIDEO GAMES. Modern games in particular (with a few exceptions) have all but done away with harsh punishments for failing. No more starting from the beginning after a game over like the NES days, now we've got save points and cumulative stat growth that allow you to just fuck around if you feel like it and not "ruin" your game. Have you ever even PLAYED the GTA games? Going on joyrides and mowing down pedestrians is a lot of fun when you're doing it in a video game, not so much when you're doing it in real life.

So no, Chaos, language used to describe video games most certainly does not necessarily apply to how we would describe real life situations, and it's excessively silly to attempt to group them together.

I've played GTA games. The explicit, stated goal of the GTA games (and sandbox games in general) is to give the power of choice to the player. If the player decides to spend 100 hours trying to make some insane jump into a helicopter and put the video on youtube, the developers didn't "encourage" him to do that. They created a world where that thing was possible, but the player had the choice to do a million other things. Almost all of the limitations you talk about are technical. If developers could create a game like Roy that we all jack into and play through for 50 years, they would. They just can't right now.

It absolutely is the same as real life. I technically could go on a shooting spree right now. I am not encouraged to do that simply because gun stores and concealed carry laws exist. That isn't even the purpose of those things. But I could use them to facilitate my own choices. The game is no different. I could beat hookers to death in GTA all day every day. The game doesn't encourage me to do that, in fact it punishes me if I am caught doing that. But I have the choice, which is what the developers want.

Tanoomba · Aug 30, 2015

Chaos: "I've played GTA games. The explicit, stated goal of the GTA games (and sandbox games in general) is to give the power of choice to the player. If the player decides to spend 100 hours trying to make some insane jump into a helicopter and put the video on youtube, the developers didn't "encourage" him to do that. They created a world where that thing was possible, but the player had the choice to do a million other things. Almost all of the limitations you talk about are technical. If developers could create a game like Roy that we all jack into and play through for 50 years, they would. They just can't right now.

It absolutely is the same as real life. I technically could go on a shooting spree right now. I am not encouraged to do that simply because gun stores and concealed carry laws exist. That isn't even the purpose of those things. But I could use them to facilitate my own choices. The game is no different. I could beat hookers to death in GTA all day every day. The game doesn't encourage me to do that, in fact it punishes me if I am caught doing that. But I have the choice, which is what the developers want."

I guess we fundamentally disagree. If the developers had to meticulously tweak helicopter physics and rules to allow players to attempt crazy jumps into, I believe it's because they anticipated people would try that and gave them the tools to do so, implicitly encouraging them. They didn't just load helicopter.dat because real life has helicopters and leave it at that. Everything that's put in a video game is put there for a reason. It's a crafted experience from the ground up, and that applies to sandbox games as well as any other types of games. A well designed game makes it seem seamless, like you actually do have freedom to do what you want, but in the end you're playing a virtual coloring book where every picture and every color was specifically chosen to allow anticipated actions. You can color however you want (outside the lines, even), but everything you can do is restricted by rules which were pre-decided after much consideration and implementation.

But really, Chaos, what this comes down to is that you disagree with how Anita used "encourage". You think she's using it incorrectly and that's where your disagreement stems. I would give more weight to this semantics argument if Sarkeesian didn't go out of her way to make it explicitly clear what she meant by "encouraged". I think she successfully gets her message across (even if you think she used the wrong word to do so), and I think she is intentionally misrepresented in much of the propaganda designed to discredit her. The game design argument she puts forth is not extraneous, it is vital to understanding her message, and removing it from a critique of her subsequent description of the trope is basically lying through omission.

By the way, Chaos, do you think she is lying in the way she used "encourage"?

(Oh, I also disagree that we don't have forced shit breaks and can't get traffic tickets in GTA because of technical limitations. There are MANY cases where making something more realistic would also make it less fun. Technical limitations have nothing to do with that.)

fanaskin · Aug 30, 2015

so in tanoomba's reasoning unless the rules turn the game into a theme park it encourages you to do things, because we should only play in rubber rooms where we could only have consequences actions.

fanaskin · Aug 30, 2015

consequences = consequenceless

hodj · Aug 30, 2015

The very phrase implicitly encourages is an oxymoron.

To encourage is an active verb

Tanoomba · Aug 30, 2015

Fanaskin: "so in tanoomba's reasoning unless the rules turn the game into a theme park it encourages you to do things, because we should only play in rubber rooms where we could only have consequences actions."

What the hell is this? You wanna tray again there?

fanaskin · Aug 30, 2015

you wanna stop talking out of both sides of your mouth? if "we know" were playing video games why does it translate that anything we do in a video game translates to the real world, since you clearly just made the point that video games are known to everyone to be fake.

Mario Speedwagon · Aug 30, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
I guess we fundamentally disagree. If the developers had to meticulously tweak helicopter physics and rules to allow players to attempt crazy jumps into, I believe it's because they anticipated people would try that and gave them the tools to do so, implicitly encouraging them. They didn't just load helicopter.dat because real life has helicopters and leave it at that. Everything that's put in a video game is put there for a reason. It's a crafted experience from the ground up, and that applies to sandbox games as well as any other types of games. A well designed game makes it seem seamless, like you actually do have freedom to do what you want, but in the end you're playing a virtual coloring book where every picture and every color was specifically chosen to allow anticipated actions. You can color however you want (outside the lines, even), but everything you can do is restricted by rules which were pre-decided after much consideration and implementation.

Holy fuck do you know anything at all about video games? Every single action a player can take in a game was not pre-decided by the developers. There are millions of examples of players doing things, or finding ways to do things in games that the developers never thought of or even thought were possible. Especially true in a fucking sandbox.

Just admit "encouraged" was the wrong word to use.

chaos · Aug 30, 2015

Tanoomba_sl said:
I guess we fundamentally disagree. If the developers had to meticulously tweak helicopter physics and rules to allow players to attempt crazy jumps into, I believe it's because they anticipated people would try that and gave them the tools to do so, implicitly encouraging them. They didn't just load helicopter.dat because real life has helicopters and leave it at that. Everything that's put in a video game is put there for a reason. It's a crafted experience from the ground up, and that applies to sandbox games as well as any other types of games. A well designed game makes it seem seamless, like you actually do have freedom to do what you want, but in the end you're playing a virtual coloring book where every picture and every color was specifically chosen to allow anticipated actions. You can color however you want (outside the lines, even), but everything you can do is restricted by rules which were pre-decided after much consideration and implementation.

But really, Chaos, what this comes down to is that you disagree with how Anita used "encourage". You think she's using it incorrectly and that's where your disagreement stems. I would give more weight to this semantics argument if Sarkeesian didn't go out of her way to make it explicitly clear what she meant by "encouraged". I think she successfully gets her message across (even if you think she used the wrong word to do so), and I think she is intentionally misrepresented in much of the propaganda designed to discredit her. The game design argument she puts forth is not extraneous, it is vital to understanding her message, and removing it from a critique of her subsequent description of the trope is basically lying through omission.

By the way, Chaos, do you think she is lying in the way she used "encourage"?

(Oh, I also disagree that we don't have forced shit breaks and can't get traffic tickets in GTA because of technical limitations. There are MANY cases where making something more realistic would also make it less fun. Technical limitations have nothing to do with that.)

yeah I think you don't know anything about the development process if you think the developers anticipated half of the shit people do with software in general, not to mention video games.

Of course I disagree with how she used the word. Words have meanings. I don't care what you think she meant by that word or what she said she meant, words have definitive meanings and she is being deceptive by trying to obscure the meaning of a word. The word encourage means to offer incentive or otherwise support or stimulate in order to get a person to take a course of action. You are encouraged, explicitly, to unite the tri-force. You are explicitly DIScouraged from beating hookers to death with a penalty. Some people choose to do that anyway, the developers didn't encourage them to do that, they created a platform that makes it possible.

Dude, I would play Roy a hundred times a day if I could, shit breaks and all. You are on a message board where people devoted their lives to MMOs for short period of time. Do you know how many stupid fucking craft items I have made in virtual worlds? Cranking out Iron Gauntlets or whatever the fuck to gain skill so i can make Arcanite Reapers. People can and will do monotonous shit all day erry day because that's the game.

khalid · Aug 30, 2015

chaos_sl said:
words have definitive meanings and she is being deceptive by trying to obscure the meaning of a word.

While we can't be sure exactly what she was doing by using that word, I think the likely explanation is that she absolutely knew how most people would take "encourage". She wanted to drum up the belief that Hitman straight up encouraged, as part of the normal gameplay, for people to kill hookers and then desecrate their corpses. Not the wishywashy encourage that Tanoomba is talking about, but the "encourage" most people would instantly assume, the one where Hitman must give you points for doing so. Hitman directly penalizes you for it, the exact opposite of the impression most people would get from that video.

It is straight up deceptive to say "encourage" in that context, if not outright attempt to mislead people (ie: lie).

khalid · Aug 30, 2015

After all, her whole "schtick" benefits if people really believe that Hitman is a game based around rewarding you for torturing hookers and fucking with their corpses.

chaos · Aug 30, 2015

We can't know her mind or her intent, but it is deceptive regardless of whether she is being malicious or not. The word doesn't mean that.

And this isn't some minor point, this is the crux of the argument. Sandbox games give freedom to the player, by design. The open-world format is something they pitch and advertise and build entire franchises around. If you are stating that every action possible in the game has been specifically designed so that players would interact with it in a specific way, that's no longer an open-world, sandbox concept. That's an NES level RPG with fancier graphics. The entire point behind this whole super-genre of games is to allow for the player to have choice and freedom. Allowing the possibility of running around in circles for 30 hours does not mean the developers are encouraging players to run around in circles for 30 hours.

Every possibility, some of them the developers never could have foreseen, is just something that exists within the platform. Again, like real life. I could kill hookers all day in real life, and given the number of unsolved murders in this country I could probably get away with it. Is society encouraging me to murder hookers either by their existence or by the lack of a penalty for doing it? You may say that real life doesn't equate, and it doesn't perfectly, but the stated goal of these games is to emulate real life more and more, give more choices rather than restrictions.

The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Unelected Mod

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Vox Populi Jihadi

Buzzfeed Editor

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Vox Populi Jihadi

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Gold Recognition

Buzzfeed Editor

Unelected Mod

Unelected Mod

Buzzfeed Editor