So, that's it then, apparently.
#39
2 stef:

What a fucking joke, I don't think you can recall enough of what has actually happened in regards to the communication between you and the community. I actually discovered a bit recently that you created those three threads in an attempt to communicate with the playerbase, mostly out of an interest in reading past threads - so by then I knew that you had it in you somewhat to cooperate with actual variant factors. Real people who actually play this game for fun and are at least willing to provide their opinions when asked, and at other times might expect a little more activity than there usually is. Most of them aren't that selfish to demand improvements without an articulate say, you seem to confuse the two *giving out an opinion* with *someone who can't do what he says* quite a lot, so I don't think you've seen enough yet to actually recognize a harmless player who's simply willing to part with whatever harmless input he has. After all, it can't bring harm when it hasn't even been implemented yet. But you and your ego issues can't reconcile with the fact that you've done quite a lot of wrong in this regard, and not even just from a moral perspective. Lashing out at users and at times considering taking advantage of your own jurisdiction in an attempt to censor their thoughts? That's your failure as a developer for Assaultcube, not merely as a human being. I'm quite sure Undead has a lot to say about this one. I mean, you even think of him as some cult leader who controls half of the population in the forum here. Some people have the same thoughts as him and you call them his fanboys, and that's a real thing if anyone didn't know - he's so emotionally fragile that he's willing to classify a variable source of critique as verbal assaults to his triumphant existence. It's like AC is a fairy tail about the Unprecedented One living among the clouds, are we all heathens simply for having a different opinion? Join our cult today!

And I think you're just talking out of your ass in an attempt to dodge what has already been said, but my case is remarkably similar to how it goes in the woes of those who "oppose" a "benevolent dictator", or perhaps I should say belligerent in case sarcasm doesn't belong in your course of discourse... but that would be foolhardy, as you have demonstrated many times that you are so much capable of speaking in authoritative tones as a replacement for rational argument. We might be all Forum Jesters to you, but see how easy it is to reverse that: no you did not issue out a request to restrict my creating of THREADS (consistency please) because I /intentionally/ spammed the forums with different opinions, you restricted me from creating them because your imagination likes to exaggerate the wrongdoings of others, in fact you simply stated that "you continued to talk shit", but that's really vague. I talked feces about what? You going on tantrums every time someone differs from your ideology in the forums? You should be more specific because I'm losing memory of all this, your egotistical drive makes simple things really complex. You are not a saint and you're definitely not a good moderator, you just imply that you really do think you're God every time you set foot onto mortal soil. Your dodging skills when it comes to the truth are amazing. It's because of you that new users might think that they can't criticize the development team - they'll get warned and banned forever because they unfortunately touched a nerve. You can't understand the perspective of others either, and you proved that in a discussion regarding team balancing in public games.

So just admit that you want to make people your bitches, because you threatening to leave the development team because XRD meddled with your plaything just proves that you don't develop AC for the people who play it, you develop AC to develop your Ego. John Carmack wouldn't have been proud sorry, this is my second time apologizing 2 u
Thanks given by:


Messages In This Thread
So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 24 May 15, 09:48PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Harps - 24 May 15, 09:57PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 24 May 15, 11:11PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by 1Cap - 25 May 15, 01:53AM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 25 May 15, 11:57AM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 25 May 15, 05:02PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Harps - 25 May 15, 10:15PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 25 May 15, 11:28PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 25 May 15, 07:22PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 25 May 15, 08:21PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Alien - 25 May 15, 08:26PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 25 May 15, 09:45PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Harps - 25 May 15, 09:49PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 25 May 15, 10:10PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by G1gantuan - 25 May 15, 10:19PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 25 May 15, 10:36PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 25 May 15, 10:41PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by 1Cap - 25 May 15, 10:47PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Alien - 25 May 15, 11:05PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 25 May 15, 11:10PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Cemer - 25 May 15, 11:54PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 26 May 15, 11:11AM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Cemer - 26 May 15, 12:15PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 26 May 15, 12:49PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 26 May 15, 01:27PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Alien - 26 May 15, 04:12PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Cemer - 26 May 15, 04:36PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by 1Cap - 26 May 15, 07:27PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 26 May 15, 07:30PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 26 May 15, 07:37PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 26 May 15, 07:43PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Alien - 26 May 15, 08:05PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by SKB - 26 May 15, 10:02PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 27 May 15, 01:40PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Cemer - 27 May 15, 01:52PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Harps - 27 May 15, 02:11PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 27 May 15, 06:21PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 27 May 15, 07:04PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by 1Cap - 27 May 15, 08:28PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Cemer - 27 May 15, 08:58PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Halte - 27 May 15, 11:37PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 27 May 15, 11:41PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Halte - 27 May 15, 11:51PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by stef - 28 May 15, 12:03AM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Cemer - 29 May 15, 12:36AM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Cemer - 29 May 15, 02:58AM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Cemer - 29 May 15, 03:53PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 29 May 15, 11:12AM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 29 May 15, 11:39AM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Alien - 29 May 15, 01:20PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by 1Cap - 29 May 15, 01:55PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 29 May 15, 04:04PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 29 May 15, 06:17PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Marti - 29 May 15, 06:25PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by al3rt - 30 May 15, 08:32PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 30 May 15, 08:44PM
RE: So, that's it then, apparently. - by Luc@s - 30 May 15, 09:36PM