next »

[The Monster King]

core xii if you have read each and every of bvaneverys answers in the 3 topics i have linked and you dont see anything wrong then i dont believe we can say much to change your mind and the fact that in this topic so far you have defended him as much as you defended yourself because you feel similar sort of proves the point that there is egocentric behavior and in bvaneverys case it is being harmful to some discussions like oh
everyone is saying
consensus happens its not mob mentality or some paranoid shit, its just " a lot of people disagree with you"

i dont feel like looking for each of his individual posts, why should i do the effort for you!! there are many functions available like show all of xxx's last posts that you could try

whoa 5 new replies wops

[Christian Knudsen]

This is a oven fresh example from the "The death of deep & well though complex games" thread of what I personally find annoying:

For example, Chess is a good game, I think we agree. But in a sense chess is a dumbed down game, very simple - takes 15min - to pickup.

That's an exaggeration.  If it really only took you a literal 15 minutes to understand and play your 1st chess game in so-so fashion, then you're smarter than 90% of the people on the planet.  It's not a crime to be born with a brain capable of more spatial / mathematical / analytical operations per second than most people, but it is a skewing factor you should take into account when analyzing the braininess or dumbness of a game.

I learned chess when I was 6 or 7 I think.  The babysitter taught me one day.  It took me an hour and of course I didn't play particularly well.  I was playing D&D at 8.  At 10 our school took a few of us to the Golden Gate Junior Chess Association.  I didn't think of myself as an amazing player, but I actually beat a lot of people and got to Table #1.  There, the 3 other people totally creamed me, because they had formal training in chess strategy and I didn't.

In college, I got pretty decent at chess by playing against the Sargon II AI on the Macintosh.  It played a boring but effective game of attrition, and it taught me the specific value of specific squares.  Such a game would offend Marcel Duchamp, who felt it was more important to play an artistic game than simply to win.

In later life, I played against people in Seattle coffee houses who "took chess really seriously."  I didn't always win but I always gave the super-maniacs a really hard fight.  Chess wasn't interesting enough to me to go study all those books and openings and moves.  It was clear that I could, if I wanted to be a better chess player, but I didn't care to.  I played chess like a general on a battlefield, by the seat of my pants.  I generally didn't think more than 3 moves ahead.  That was fine for me.  It was enough to beat a lot of really good chess players, if not the best chess players.

oberhamsi says that chess is a simple game to pick up. I agree. The rules are simple. Perhaps it takes some people 15 minutes, perhaps it takes others an hour. That's besides the point. Of course oberhamsi doesn't mean to say that it takes everybody literally 15 minutes to learn chess. But bvanevery latches on to the 15 minutes part and replies to that in a very smug manner... and then goes on a long ramble on how he himself learned chess.

[KM]

Besides the first paragraph what he says is not too bad besides being somewhat of a braggart.

It's kind of black and white thinking that's going on with bvan there. I would also be skeptical of most people learning basic chess in 15 minutes.

[Christian Knudsen]

But the point isn't whether or not it takes exactly 15 minutes to pick up. The point is that the rules are simple. To me, it's like if you say to someone that you're so hungry you could eat a horse, and then the other person starts correcting me by saying that, no, you could in fact not eat a horse since your stomach wouldn't be able to contain all the meat and blah, blah, blah... It's just so constantly contrarian that it wears down the conversation. It's exactly that kind of stuff that's kept me from joining those discussions. It's like, even if he seems to agree with the majority of what someone says, he makes an effort to find a little nugget of stuff to disagree with and then harps on that, regardless of how inconsequential it was to the overall point being presented.

[Seth]

But you must admit it would surely take most people an hour to learn chess, not 15 minutes.

[The Monster King]

and he proceeded to give us some biographic evidence because of narcissism

thats not really an offensive post though

[Core Xii]

<citation needed>

In one breath he suggests that he will try to have a shorter fuse

Didn't see it myself, but that's what Mephs said.

he ignores the points that could compromise his postition and chooses instead to reply to the ones he can easily debunk.

I still think it's not the truth of the matter. I do that all the time! The points I can't attack when arguing will linger in my subconscious and refine my model of understanding. The fact that I attack the "easy" points first doesn't mean I ignored the rest; Only that I didn't know how to respond to them at the time. (due to the nature of the medium, it is unlikely that I'll come back to it - But at least it improves my understanding for the next debate)

considering you once posted on these forums that your IQ was higher than everyone else in a thread and that therefore you're right,  be careful of defending people from narcissism

That's my point! I know where he's coming from. Nobody says they're smarter than 99% of the population unless they're an INTP and took an IQ test (actually, I only scored better than 98% ). It comes off as arrogance and elitism, I know. I lost friends like that. But the ones that saw through my social ineptitude, didn't shrug it off as something it wasn't and sticked with me helped me to develop and reap the benefits today. Despite the initial misunderstanding we have a lot to contribute.

I'm inclined to disagree with your assessment on scientists, though. Stereotypically, that's exactly how they operate. Think academia. They accuse each other of being total morons all the time, disagreeing on every aspect of every theory, unable to agree on anything. Although this view may not be correct at all, but rather the distorted result of consumed media.

Keep in mind that even scientists are competing organisms. There's a limited amount of resources in the universe, and we all seek to one-up the rest. Sure there's advantages in cooperation, but in the end yourself always takes priority.

i dont feel like looking for each of his individual posts, why should i do the effort for you!!

...Because you're the one accusing him of something. You talk of mob mentality and then you say we should judge him without evidence. Let's at least pretend some degree of due process here. You don't accuse someone of committing a crime and when asked for evidence, present everything he's ever written and say "its there somewhere, go look, what u lazy?"

Of course oberhamsi doesn't mean to say that it takes everybody literally 15 minutes to learn chess. But bvanevery latches on to the 15 minutes part and replies to that in a very smug manner... and then goes on a long ramble on how he himself learned chess.

it's like if you say to someone that you're so hungry you could eat a horse, and then the other person starts correcting me by saying that, no, you could in fact not eat a horse since your stomach wouldn't be able to contain all the meat and blah, blah, blah... It's just so constantly contrarian that it wears down the conversation.

It's in our nature, to latch onto the incorrect terms. The drive to correct even where unnecessary. Drives my boss crazy all the time. Every time she uses words like "always", "never", "nothing" or "everything" I snap like a maniac and point out that technically it's not true, even though the term, in practice, refers to a certain threshold designed to be able to communicate certain things. It's just what we do... And it takes time to develop the restraints to not pick on every detail in a conversation. I still do it 99% of the time.

But I suggest that we don't ban him on the grounds that he likes correcting people. It may be annoying, yes, but... Eh. You didn't ban me, and would you not consider me an at least moderately contributing member of the community?

On second thought, don't answer that.

[eva]

mayb bring joe back n he can argue with bvanervery

[bento_smile]

T-that would bring down the internet, for sure  

Edit: Actually, I figure I'll just ignore the design forum here for the forseeable future. If I wanna talk about design, there are other places on the internet. (Possibly people there like games other than Civ, hahaha.)

[Christian Knudsen]

But I suggest that we don't ban him on the grounds that he likes correcting people.

Okay, this is equally annoying. We're not voting on banning him simply because he likes correcting people. Just like we're not voting on banning him simply because he ignores some posts. It seems every time somebody brings up a point against him, you focus on that single point and pretend that it's just that one single point that's brought forth this vote. It's not. It's an overall attitude and behavior.

I can certainly recognize some of his behavior in you. I don't mean that as an insult. It's just like you say, you're basically the same personality types. INTP. But that's not a disease. It's not tourrettes. You still know what you're saying and you have control over it. It's just a personality type that describes to some degree why people act like they do. Don't use it as an excuse for behavior that other people find annoying. There are plenty of people that are categorized as INTP that aren't annoying, argumentative and contrarian.

[deathtotheweird]

But I suggest that we don't ban him on the grounds that he likes correcting people. It may be annoying, yes, but... Eh. You didn't ban me, and would you not consider me an at least moderately contributing member of the community?

while you are just as annoying as bvanevery, you don't persist and keep pushing buttons and completely derail threads and anger people. going through your posts, the ratio between you arguing and pissing people off is very low compared to bvanevery

[Christian Knudsen]

You know what, this is exactly why this stuff shouldn't be put on public vote and debate. I really don't want to get into a discussion with Core Xii, since I like him and most of his posts I've read here. Instead of some moderators deciding in private whether or not a poster should be banned, we're now arguing back and forth and people are getting hit that shouldn't get hit. This vote and this thread really seems to have just spread the issue further instead of containing it. I'm out.

[The Monster King]

core xii core xii
no i say look for your evidence yourself lazy i gave you topics do you want me to explain what each and every of his words mean

considering the ones he likes using that could be useful even if you scored 98% in the test which im sure was a fine boost to your ego?

here have a page lazy stop being lazy and make games show us what all that iq can do

i endorse derek's decision to make this discussion public as i believe communication is the most important things for human beings (thats us even though i am the monster king)

[drChengele]

Whoa, this was a long read. With unexpected amounts of vivid pornographic imagery in the latter half.  

There is one very important thing that needs to be determined here. Does bvanevery's presence disrupt the community? It doesn't matter if it is a small population of threads, if he severely sidetracks discussions in those threads to the point of muscling other posters out of them - posters, I'd like to emphasize, who usually take time and effort to participate in a discussion in a civil manner - then there is really no reason for the community to tolerate it.

If the argument against banning him is that he provokes interesting thoughts, then we should take into account all those thoughts that will remain forever unprovoked because people did not have the mental stamina to keep up with his aggressive and disruptive posting style and just bailed the threads.

I am not here to wave a virtual pitchfork. It is of little consequence whether or not one bvanevery gets a formal ban. What matters is whether or not he has the capacity to harm the community if he is allowed to keep posting - if his posting privileges, if you will, are not removed. And in my book, thread derailment - nonconstructive, confrontational thread derailment - harms the community. Therefore I voted yes.

People act as if the ability to post on tigsource is a constitutional right. Well, it is not. It's a privilege. And it's very easy to earn - all you need to do is fill in a registration form, not be a spambot, have some vague connection to or interest in indie games, not post child pornography, and try not to turn random threads into flame wars too frequently.

That said, if a ban seems like too radical a measure for any reason (let's say, because the offender might yet learn to integrate into the community), then a suspension or a probation period or a similar temporary measure might be better suited.

[bento_smile]

Also, bvanevery, did you break increpare?

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=15149.msg438736#msg438736

Ok, I was bored.

asshats

They don't know how to write.

You just haven't performed the intellectual work of understanding what I've already given you.

I don't know any native English speakers who consider Chess or Go to be "sports."  

(Which is offensive when said to foreigners )

[Derek]

That's my point! I know where he's coming from. Nobody says they're smarter than 99% of the population unless they're an INTP and took an IQ test (actually, I only scored better than 98% ). It comes off as arrogance and elitism, I know. I lost friends like that. But the ones that saw through my social ineptitude, didn't shrug it off as something it wasn't and sticked with me helped me to develop and reap the benefits today. Despite the initial misunderstanding we have a lot to contribute.

...

It's in our nature, to latch onto the incorrect terms. The drive to correct even where unnecessary. Drives my boss crazy all the time. Every time she uses words like "always", "never", "nothing" or "everything" I snap like a maniac and point out that technically it's not true, even though the term, in practice, refers to a certain threshold designed to be able to communicate certain things. It's just what we do... And it takes time to develop the restraints to not pick on every detail in a conversation. I still do it 99% of the time.

What you said there implies a certain amount of self-awareness and empathy that Brandon doesn't seem to have. That's probably what makes all the difference.

Reading the INTP page, though (I love Myers-Briggs):

The INTP may have a problem with self-aggrandizement and social rebellion, which will interfere with their creative potential. Since their Feeling side is their least developed trait, the INTP may have difficulty giving the warmth and support that is sometimes necessary in intimate relationships. If the INTP doesn't realize the value of attending to other people's feelings, he or she may become overly critical and sarcastic with others. If the INTP is not able to find a place for themself which supports the use of their strongest abilities, they may become generally negative and cynical. If the INTP has not developed their Sensing side sufficiently, they may become unaware of their environment, and exhibit weakness in performing maintenance-type tasks, such as bill-paying and dressing appropriately.

For the INTP, it is extremely important that ideas and facts are expressed correctly and succinctly. They are likely to express themselves in what they believe to be absolute truths. Sometimes, their well thought-out understanding of an idea is not easily understandable by others, but the INTP is not naturally likely to tailor the truth so as to explain it in an understandable way to others. The INTP may be prone to abandoning a project once they have figured it out, moving on to the next thing. It's important that the INTP place importance on expressing their developed theories in understandable ways. In the end, an amazing discovery means nothing if you are the only person who understands it.

Dang. Right on the money.

[Skofo]

I think he's an INTP

I stopped taking his argument seriously right there, and anyone else with any sense should have too. A personality test does not shield you from accountability for shitty behavior.

[KM]

I think Core sounds more INTJ than INTP.

[Seth]

I think he's an INTP

I stopped taking his argument seriously right there, and anyone else with any sense should have too. Believing in a personality test does not shield you from accountability for shitty behavior.

But it's in their nature.

[Core Xii]

I stopped taking his argument seriously right there, and anyone else with any sense should have too. A personality test does not shield you from accountability for shitty behavior.

That's very ignorant of you.

First of all it's not a test, it's a scale. You can take a test to measure your place in said scale, but indicating your position in it does not imply one took a test. Personally I read someone's written description of the personality and it fit me perfectly, and thus I knew to be an INTP.

Secondly nobody said anything about shielding. I'm trying to explain why he seems to behave the way you interpret, but in fact his intentions are not to cause disruption, but clarity. It is the method by which this task is carried out that's the problem here... And he's already agreed to work on it.



Well, I just talked to the man in real-time. I was right about his personality, albeit I assumed he'd be a lot younger. There's not much I can add here, so I rest my case. Whatever the outcome of the vote, I found a friend. I just ask you exercise a bit of tolerance and leniency in allowing him to adjust to this community, assuming he wants to anymore.