Warrior General Games

Originally posted by The Big Cack Envy
Originally posted by hatchman

-1

yeah?

y u no like?



I gave it a -1 so I guess that would be a correct assumption wouldn't it. no need to try to be Yello1 and start the childish arguing.

so in short I gave the idea a -1 that means I do not like the idea hope that is clear enough.

I was wondering when Yello's seasonal barrage of chemistry-related suggestions would pop up.

-1

Originally posted by hatchman
Originally posted by The Big Cack Envy

Originally posted by hatchman


-1

yeah?

y u no like?



I gave it a -1 so I guess that would be a correct assumption wouldn't it. no need to try to be Yello1 and start the childish arguing.

so in short I gave the idea a -1 that means I do not like the idea hope that is clear enough.

Discussions in a forum are not "childish", they are the point.

Do I need to roll out the dictionary definitions for forum and its descriptive terms again?

Originally posted by Myd
I was wondering when Yello's seasonal barrage of chemistry-related suggestions would pop up.

-1

Heh we actually don't have the problem yet. May not have it too bad, will see. But I have a bunch of AWOL agents on one team and was wondering if I should release them etc, and that got me thinking about chemistry and so on.

BTW, WTF is comicfanman at?

Things are fine as they are.

-1

Originally posted by alindyl
I don't agree with this suggestion mainly because it doesn't add anything to the overall userbase.
-1

This. Chemistry the way it currently exists is fine and as long as you plan correctly doesn't overly handicap teams.
-1 to the OP.

Originally posted by yello1
I gave it a -1 so I guess that would be a correct assumption wouldn't it. no need to try to be Yello1 and start the childish arguing.

so in short I gave the idea a -1 that means I do not like the idea hope that is clear enough.

Discussions in a forum are not "childish", they are the point.

Do I need to roll out the dictionary definitions for forum and its descriptive terms again?



there is a difference in discussing and debating a suggestion or thought and running your freaking mouth calling people Luddites and Nazi's because they do not agree with what you suggested. so as I have told you before when I post a -1 to one of your ideas. move on and call someone else out because I am done wasting time arguing with you.

wat is a luddite?

Oh wait, I just looked it up on wiki. I would be proud to be a luddite. fuck progress.

1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
2. One who opposes technical or technological change.

those are 2 definitions of a luddite

You bet your ass I'm a luddite. I hate modern shit. The only reason I have a computer is to order cigars from an auction site.

Originally posted by merenoise
Originally posted by alindyl

I don't agree with this suggestion mainly because it doesn't add anything to the overall userbase.
-1

This. Chemistry the way it currently exists is fine and as long as you plan correctly doesn't overly handicap teams.
-1 to the OP.



Fine or not is certainly a matter of opinion. You can think it is fine as in it works.

But does it make sense?

Good NFL teams swap Kickers week to week at times. It has no effect on chemistry.

In GLB if you do that mid season your whole team would play less well that next week.

For the KICKER.

Does that make sense to you?

Originally posted by hatchman
Originally posted by yello1

I gave it a -1 so I guess that would be a correct assumption wouldn't it. no need to try to be Yello1 and start the childish arguing.

so in short I gave the idea a -1 that means I do not like the idea hope that is clear enough.

Discussions in a forum are not "childish", they are the point.

Do I need to roll out the dictionary definitions for forum and its descriptive terms again?



there is a difference in discussing and debating a suggestion or thought and running your freaking mouth calling people Luddites and Nazi's because they do not agree with what you suggested. so as I have told you before when I post a -1 to one of your ideas. move on and call someone else out because I am done wasting time arguing with you.

That as may be Hatch, though for the record that was being humorous and its positively not insulting though it may be descriptive in a colorful fashion. But you have spent paragraphs going into issues far afield from that.

And here I am just saying that there is no need to get pissy when SOMEONE ELSE asks you why you -1 because they too are under the misunderstanding that a forum is a place to discuss things and may have a natural curiousity and desire to see you expound upon your digital response.

Doesn't mean you HAVE to expound, but there is just no need to act surprised and outraged that they desired you to.

Originally posted by hatchman
1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
2. One who opposes technical or technological change.

those are 2 definitions of a luddite

You forgot 3

3. One who instinctively -1's all ideas in a game forum that offer any substantive change beyond the functional norm of the current state of affairs or which would have a computer do any calculations or work saving chores for players that could better be done with slide rules and abacuses.

I'm sure that sub definition must be on Urban Dictionary or someplace. Don't you think?