Have you ever met someone who was a bad person, but a good GM?

>>49693618
It's kind of possible I guess? Depending on how you mean bad person. You could have a really mean person who still in the end refuses to be a terrible host when he does have people around.

I haven't seen it personally but I've also maybe seen two good GMs.

Still waiting on ANY good DM.

>>49693618
Yes. He's racist, sexist, smug and easily angered. He also the only good DM I've ever seen.

>>49693618
Does the opposite count?

I've met some really nice people that couldn't host a game proper to save their lives.
Special mention to a guy that while incredibly helpful in teaching me how to play Dark Heresy, his game was so railroady and easy that all five players got bored and dropped out.

File: you-have-to-go-back.gif (348KB, 350x233px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 350x233px

>>49693707
/lgbt/

>>49693618
>this seems next to impossible.

By reports, virtualoptim was a decent GM.
I suspect the primary source that said he was "good" may have never have played with a good GM.
Descriptions matched decent level though.
Contrasting decent GMing with the undeniable fact that he is a waste of human life and the worst sort of person, makes him fit your bill.

>>49693780
Go to sleep, virt.

>>49693618
There are good comedians and authors that are fucking assholes in real life, so I'd say yes.

>>49693791
>virt is always talking about what piece of shit he is.
What?

Although, this is the second time I've been called virt by someone jumping at the boogieman, so thanks for that I guess.

>>49693791
I think he's citing that one anon that gave us a description of the beast,

>>49693872
Indeed.

It's possible, had a guy that was a good dm. The issue was that he was just...a bit too aweful? To the point that coordinating games, hanging out during breaks, and even being in the apartment when he was around was just bad.

>>49693853
>>49693872
The only person who still cares about him is him himself. Trolls are an entity to be forgotten.

>>49693618
Yup. A real sociopath, the kind that has probably killed stray animals and homeless people. But as a GM, he's a god. Harsh, yet fair, and he had massive charisma for a fatguy neckbeard. Must be his smooth deep voice and puppy eyes.

>>49694046
I've read that Morgan Freeman is one of the nastiest people in Hollywood. Rarely bathes, always smells, hardly even brushes his teeth.

>>49693618
>this seems next to impossible.
Did you never meet an asshole who is, well, a stuck-up asshole, but you still hang around him because he is way smarter than anyone else you know and it's fun to banter with him?
'Cause that's not such a rare occurence as you might think.

>>49693707
Are you one of my players?

>>49694082
I'm that asshole.
Try debating something with me, I'll shit on your whole life to win.

File: CEK.jpg (34KB, 491x541px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 491x541px

>>49694116
>Try debating something with me

>>49694022
He still serves as a bad example.
But, you're not wrong.

>>49694116
>I'll shit on your whole life to win
But if you need to do that to win, doesn't that kind of prove that you are no good at debating?
Using excessive power and effort instead of refined skill is nothing to brag about.
You are the Naruto of debate, sir.

>>49694082
Kill yourself, Tristan

>>49694116
>I'll shit on your whole life to win.
>I'm great at monopoly, when I roll a 1 I bounce and scream until mom lets me roll again.

>>49694082
take that, make the person think their smarter and have them deflect down with things like "All I'm hearing is bitch bitch bitch"

Now you just try to take the high road and not kill them, because its a hard road to take. Violence by intelligent people is not rare either, for insanity seems to be the other choice.

That said, he'd probably be an ok dm if he liked dnd or anything.

>>49694180
>But if you need to do that to win, doesn't that kind of prove that you are no good at debating?
No, any primate with basic reading comprehension would have understood it meant that's the lengths I'm willing to go, not that I need it in order to win.

That is besides the point, since I'm talking about being an asshole, not being good at debating.

Nice strawman and ad hominem though.

>>49694210
Did you sprain your ankle doing those mental gymnastics needed to reach that conclusion?

>>49693618
Kinda agree about number 2 there. The moment painting or the game feels like work is the moment I need a break.

>>49694210
>>49694180
>>49694137
To be fair to that anon you don't have to be a good debater to win a debate. For example: if the other side gives up on arguing that counts as a win.

>>49694424
it can also be very intelligent to lose an argument. You know, before you kill them and get arrested for murder.

>>49694351
>Primate with basic reading comprehension
See this right here, you could have just said "literate". Using $5 words and an extra sentence to sound more intelligent, does not make you sound more intelligent, it makes you sound like an autist with a thesaurus.

>>49694514
I didn't do it to make myself look intelligent, just because it was more fun.
However the fact that you consider the word "primate" to be a hard word one would need to use a thesaurus to find is quite telling.

>>49694116
>>49694541
>>49694351

Q.E.D. That's three comments now and no one here thinks you're intelligent, or a good debater.

>>49694560
>I'm an asshole that will do anything to win a debate because it's fun.
>NO ONE THINKS YOUR SMART SO THAT'S NOT TRUE
Did your mom give you permission to visit 4chan?

>>49694351
>that's the lengths I'm willing to go, not that I need it in order to win
Why would you, or anyone for that matter, go to greater lengths than they needed to in order to win?
Sorry, I've just lived with two different Great Debaters in my life. So I'm not used to people needing to resort to shitting on someone's entire world in order to win.

>>49694424
True.
Naruto wins all the time too.

>>49694586
4 comments and you still haven't given any evidence to support your claim of being a good debater.

Or is calling me underage supposed to be an example of you "shitting on my whole life"

>>49694598
>Why would you, or anyone for that matter, go to greater lengths than they needed to in order to win?
Because sometimes the point you're debating is a losing battle. I can sometimes be wrong, but I just don't let that stand in the way of a fun debate.

>>49694617
Might you point out where I made such claim?
At what age do they teach reading comprehension in your country?

>>49694645
>I'm that asshole.
>Try debating something with me, I'll shit on your whole life to win.

5 comments, you are very bad at this.

>>49694651
I see two claims there.
1) I'm an asshole.
2) I'm going to go to any lengths to win a debate.

I have an idea, you explain the mental gymnastics you performed in order to extract that claim from those two in my post and I'll judge them. It can be like real gymnastics.

>>49694645
>>Why would you, or anyone for that matter, go to greater lengths than they needed to in order to win?
>Because sometimes the point you're debating is a losing battle. I can sometimes be wrong, but I just don't let that stand in the way of a fun debate.
That answer does not fit the question I asked. Try again and this time try to make some sense. If you don't understand let me explain it: If you are defending a losing battle, then those are the lengths you need to go to.

>>49694672
>Did you never meet an asshole who is, well, a stuck-up asshole, but you still hang around him because he is way smarter than anyone else you know
>Im that asshole

6 comments, you're still not good at this.

>>49694082
I used to be like that. I still lost most of my friends.

I had a DM who seemed intelligent, but in reality just read Wikipedia a lot and shat on everyone else. It helped that most of the players were too young to recognize he was just a textbook narcissist.

Likewise, we thought he was a good DM. At least until he crashed the entire campaign in one session thanks to his pride and stupidity.

>>49694679
Are you saying why would I need to go those lengths in order to win if I was good at debating? If not I'm not quite sure what you mean. your explanation was just you rewording what I said.

>>49694706
Are you not having fun? Because you're still here bantering with me.
And you can stop counting, I get the point, they teach reading comprehension in your country after they teach counting, but that doesn't fully answer what I asked.

>>49694752
>he crashed the entire campaign in one session thanks to his pride and stupidity.

You gonna share the story or are you going to make me beg?

>>49694760
7 comments, still no examples of intelligence or debating skill.

>>49694781
The criteria wasn't to be intelligent, just smarter, and seeing how all you've been able to pull is counting and saying I'm not intelligent, if it's measured by the stupid posts we make here, I think I've shown to be smarter than you.

>>49694781
Not that guy, but if you want to prove he isn't intelligent, give him a question or something (not a knowledge-based one, but one that requires intelligence to solve).

>>49694826
8 comments. No you haven't

>>49694826
Different anon here. All you've done is insult people and made the same arguments over and over again. Neither of those are debate skills.

Unless you're an ork, I guess.

>>49693707
So he probably posts here too then.

>>49694111
pretty sure >>49693707 is one of my players, fampai

>>49694838
If I were to subscribe to the notion that intelligence can be measured by these posts as you imply, which I don't but lets pretend I do for the argument's sake, I can confidently say that I've displayed more intelligence than you have.
Now dispelling that silly notion, >>49694832 has the right idea, how about you ask me something I can't answer to show how not intelligent I am?

>>49694862
Insulting people is fun sometimes, and some anons are stuck in a loop saying the same thing over and over, so I have to give the same arguments. They ask the same question and get the same answer. And as I said before, I haven't claimed to be a great debater.

>>49694760
>Are you saying why would I need to go those lengths in order to win if I was good at debating?
I am stating that a good debater wouldn't need to. Also I'm trying to make sense of a earlier post that I quoted.

>>49694934
You're the one going in circles. Claiming you said or didn't say one thing or another, getting proven wrong, moving to another argument, losing that one, and coming back around.

In this post alone, you're claiming to be more intelligent, but then it's all about fun, anons, don't be so serious! And it's everyone else's fault, too, so there. Also try not to think about why I started this roundabout because it totally wasn't about that.

>>49694934
9 comments: No, you haven't I've let you speak and you've shown how stupid and ineffective your debating skills are.

>>49694937
>Also I'm trying to make sense of a earlier post that I quoted.
If I were to find myself arguing a point that is wrong, I will continue arguing it and reach those lengths in order to win. I do it because it's fun.
Do you consider a debate like this to be fun:
>Point
<Evidence why point is wrong
>You're right
Because I don't.

File: 2016_10_03_14.33.51.png (30KB, 257x283px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 257x283px

Man, the shitpost spirit is really strong this month and last. Even I'm getting caught up in it more often than usual.

>>49694962
If you read carefully, you might notice that I said that if I were to measure intelligence the way the anon I'm responding to does, that I'm more intelligent than him.
If you read even more carefully, you might notice that I also said that I don't.

Saying no over and over again isn't proving someone wrong.

I've claimed that I'm an asshole that will go to any lengths possible to win an argument.
I've claimed to be like that asshole that other anon mentioned, and the characteristics he described were: stuck-up asshole, smarter than others, fun to banter with.

Now lets see what has been used to disprove those notions:
>your not good at debating
>your not smart
>your not smart
>your not smart
>your not smart
>your repeating yourself!
>your not smart
>your not smart

Nothing with substance has been actually said to disprove my claim of being smarter than others, and everything so far has proved that I'm fun to banter with, since you're all still here bantering with me.

>>49694970
Last part applies to you as well.

>>49695074
10 comments: I'm still waiting.

Someone post itsaysyou'reagrot.jpg

>>49695009
Well, you have to put something in the place of those quest threads that took up 50% of the board and all the front page every day for eight years.

>>49695074
>my claim of being smarter than others
>I'm fun to banter with, since you're all still here bantering with me.

Making dumbass assumptions isn't a sign of intelligence.

>>49695120
Maybe we have different ideas about what debating is.
Let me give it a shot at the way you do it.
>your wrong
How did I do?

>>49695074
You're trying to win an argument on the internet.

That right there tells everyone exactly how smart you are.

>>49695133
I see that your preferred strategy is persistence.

>>49695132
Do you usually spend 2 hours doing something that you don't have to do because it's not fun?
That's not very smart of you if you do.

>>49695137
It tells nothing, because all the other anons debating are doing the same thing. If anything it only says we're all not very smart, now who's smarter.

>>49695143
Yes, I thought that was implied in a few of my earlier posts.

>>49695074

>Your not smart

>>49695074
The more you say, the worse it comes across. Plan accordingly.

>>49695133
11 comments: If you want to make an argument, you must make a claim and then provide evidence to support that claim. 11 comments deep and you have not given any evidence to support you're claims.
I didn't claim to be a good debtor or intelligent, you did. So you must support those claims with evidence.

So, I am still waiting.

>>49695176
>not a good debtor
Remind me not to loan you anything mate.
Alternatively, let me loan you something so I can eventually seize your assets.

>>49695164
>Do you usually spend 2 hours doing something that you don't have to do because it's not fun?
>That's not very smart of you if you do.

Now that's desperate. No wonder you have to go the persistence route: Zero debate skill.

>>49695184
>Alternatively, let me loan you something so I can eventually seize your assets.
Given your performance so far, there is no way you have the mental capacity to manage that.

Pretty sure a good amount of people consider me quite the prick, and I'm frequent to troll. But I've run some damn good games.

I feel like an asshole GM is best suited to asshole players. I've seen a lot of GM's get steamrolled by pricks because they don't have the backbone to reject stupid ideas.

>>49695200
Oh, relax, I ain't that feller, I'm just poking fun.

>>49694974
So you debate poorly because you find it fun.
I stand by my assertions, including that that is nothing to brag about.

>Do you consider a debate like this to be fun
Debates? Not really, but I also don't find shutting on people's worlds to be fun either. When the fun stops, why continue?
Arguments and conversations?
Hell yes. Being a reasonable human being is way more fun than being an asshat.

>>49695176
Here's the thing though, I didn't claim either of those. You claimed I was not intelligent and not good a debating. Why don't you support those claims? Some anon even gave you the tools to do so. Are you not using them because they only work if you're correct in the first place?

>>49695187
Care to explain how it's desperate? I find doing something that you gain 0 benefit from for two hours to be rather irrational. I'm doing it because I'm having fun doing it, but apparently you're not, so why are you doing?

>>49695184
12 comments: How about you explain what your exit strategy is, If you've convinced no one of your position, how would you claim a win from this?

>>49695226
13 Comments: Yes you did. you claimed to be intelligent and a good debater. I just want you to provide evidence for either.

>>49695226
Honest question, you a young lad? I remember when I was like you, taking big on the Internets and such, but let me tell ya something son you're not going to want to look back at this moment while your sitting on the crapper and then start thinking that going out in a pile of your own shit might not be such a bad idea!

>>49695235
See >>49695212 mate, just having

>>49695221
>So you debate poorly because you find it fun.
I debate because I find it fun, whether I do it well or poorly has nothing to do with it.
>I stand by my assertions, including that that is nothing to brag about.
I wasn't bragging about it.

>Debates? Not really, but I also don't find shutting on people's worlds to be fun either. When the fun stops, why continue?
That's why I'm an asshole. The fun didn't stop.

>>49695235
That's not me, but my exit strategy is to stay here having fun.

>>49695249
Again, may you point out where I made those claims?
Let me again post what my claims were:
>I've claimed that I'm an asshole that will go to any lengths possible to win an argument.
>I've claimed to be like that asshole that other anon mentioned, and the characteristics he described were: stuck-up asshole, smarter than others, fun to banter with.

Now, you're welcome to disprove any of these claims, or to back up the claims that I'm not smart or good at debating that only you have made.

>>49695273
I'll have time to think about that when I'm older, pops

>>49695226
>I'm doing it because I'm having fun doing it

I'm actually pretty sure you're doing it because it hurts your fee-fees to lose any argument. Mostly because I've known people who do this kind of thing, and they always try to make the same excuses.

>>49695176
This doesn't actually work as an idea. Simply because being a imageboard people will argue that they saw bigfoot last night walking down wall street.

Then type out nonsense for ten hours on why a picture of a giant boot print clearly taken from their front yard during a muddy day is proof.

Both of you are starting from bad faith so it's pretty meaningless to even talk since one guy will just say "NO U." For two hours.

>>49695300
Well I have no way of disproving that, but it's not true. If my fee-fees got hurt I'd just close this tab.
I'd say that if we debated in person you'd see I actually have fun doing it, but that's the equivalent of "fite me irl"

>>49695299

Ok I have claimed 2 things. `1. you are not intelligent, 2 you are not a good debater

1. You claimed to be intelligent. If it is claimed without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence.

2. I claimed you were a bad debater. QED its 14 comments later and you haven't made any convincing arguments.

>>49695307
Well let me tell you son I did see Bigfoot alright, and true to his name he had on a proper pair of massive clogs, very fashionable leather, and if that boot print won't convince you then I say that's on you, son, that's on you.

>>49693707
Where is the bad person?

>>49695373
I can confirm, I am a bigfoot and I saw this negro eyeing up my new sneakers yesterday.

>>49695355
>I'd say that if we debated in person you'd see I actually have fun doing it
Given what I've seen, probably not. It's been the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing at the top of your lungs.

Or, conversely:
>it's a mac, that's why it's better
>but what actually makes it better?
>because it is, idiot!

>>49695359
Well your first point is moot because I never claimed that. You need to support your claim that I claimed to be intelligent in order for it to be a valid support to your claim that I'm not because a claim without evidence can be dismissed. No wait, it'd still not support your claim, because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

I'll give you a freebee on your second claim, I am indeed a bad debater because I can't make convincing arguments to a brick wall.
Now, let tell you a fascinating fact, you can't dispute a claim by making an unrelated claim.
For example, if I were to claim that I breath air, and support my claim, that would have no bearing in this debate.

>>49695400
Nice strawman, my ability to debate is not a determinant of my ability to enjoy doing it.

>>49693618
I used to be in a group like this. Admittedly, we'd switch up GMs, but one of the guys, the guy who's house we were at, was a pretty decent GM, but I hated him as a person.

I can't say he was ethically bad, but he was kind of a dick and discussing or arguing anything with him was never worth it, as he was so enraging.

>>49695425
>Did you never meet an asshole who is is way smarter than anyone else.
>Im that asshole

15 comments.

>>49695425
>Nice strawman, my ability to debate is not a determinant of my ability to enjoy doing it.
Whoops, misread that at you telling me I'd enjoy it. Guess you do have pretty low standards, though.

I find this tweet from Bill Murray applicable for this "debate"

"It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person."
https://twitter.com/biiimurray/status/603262580119842816

>>49695463
I guess they cover word modifiers the same year they cover reading comprehension.
The "er" on the end of the word "smart" doesn't meant "a lot of smart" like you seem to think, it means "more smart than".
Now as to supporting that claim go through this thread and look at every comment that contains "# comments" and you'll notice I'm smarter than the person doing them.

>>49695476
Seeing as how I'm not talking to myself, I'd say we both do.

>>49695299
>I debate because I find it fun, whether I do it well or poorly has nothing to do with it.

>I wasn't bragging about it.
See:
>>49694116
>Try debating something with me, I'll shit on your whole life to win.
How is this not presented as a brag, regardless of intent?

>>49695373
I mean, sure, first I was shocked, whoever heard of Bigfoot in boots. But then I figure, the guy's claim to fame is right in the name, and who wouldn't want to protect some feet as valuable as that.

>>49695513
>way smarter than anyone else.
>Smarter than anyone
>ANYONE ELSE

16 comments

>>49695513
>Seeing as how I'm not talking to myself, I'd say we both do.
You're actually resorting to no u's. This is sad.

>>49695425
PS another sign of a bad debater is they argue with multiple opponents at the same time. It's a losing tactic.

It shows that your ego forces you take any bait. Any challenge to your pride MUST be addressed or else you feel emasculated.

>>49695515
I'm not sure how you interpret it as a brag. If it's not you it must have been my bad at phrasing. My intent was neutral remark at best and self deprecating at worse.

>>49695533
Of course, I'm sure what anon meant was that this person was literally the smartest person that has ever lived.

>>49695538
Because an ad hominem has to be properly addressed, right?

>>49695545
It's just more fun, and imagine how those anons would feel without their (You)s they worked so hard to get.

>>49694424
>if the other side gives up on arguing that counts as a win.

objectively wrong

>proof
>but you're wrong
>I gave you proof
>but it's wrong
>have you read it?
>you're wrong
>you just repeat the same thing
>prove it
>I'm giving up on this bullshit
>I WIN FUCKER

>>49695577
>Smarter than anyone else
>I'm that asshole
>I never claimed to be intelligent

17 comments

>>49693707
I think this might be one of my players

>>49695593
I assure you anon, your ability to count is not applicable in this debate.
Now, do you actually believe that when he said he was smarter than anyone else, that anon meant his friend was the smartest person that ever lived? Because that's what it sounds like you're implying.

File: 1431793099499.gif (527KB, 475x267px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 475x267px

>>49695577
>you
>saying anyone else is fishing for (You)s

Okay lads this has clearly gone on too long.

>>49695608
18 comments
You claimed to be intelligent and spent 18 comments proving otherwise.

>>49695624
Honestly it has, I didn't mean to derail this thread but it has been fun.

>>49695633
I claimed to be smarter than some people, and you've spent 18 comments proving me right. I must admit, your bragging about knowing how to count has been useful in telling you apart.

>>49695009
That's just autumnfags. Sage and hide.

>>49695677
>way smarter than anyone else.
19 comments, why do you keep lying when its in writing right above you.

>>49694766
I'd be happy to tell. The cathartic pleasure is about the only good thing that came out of this mess.

Some background info, first. The game was played through irc, a sort of homebrewed tabletop with some freeform on the side. Players could take turns DMing quests for each other, but the whole setup was co-managed by two prime DMs--one of which was the guy in question. We'll call him Wilbur, because I've been told he's a living breathing nerd stereotype in real life.

Now, this game lasted for years. Players could hop in at any time, maybe get lucky and snag a spot on a quest, or just hang around in freeform and shoot the shit. Issue was that at some point, fewer people were running quests and freeform was getting dull. So Wilbur got an idea.

The problem with Wilbur is that he thought all of his ideas were great. But he also had thin skin and a banhammer, and his go-to "debating method" was to call anyone who questioned him an idiot. So his schemes usually went ahead uncontested, for good or ill.

So until this point, players could pick and choose what quests they took part in and whatever went down in the story would affect only them. If any other players found some aspect of that quest stupid or annoying, they were free to practically ignore it. This turned out to be a subtle but important glue that bound the whole enterprise together. Wilbur, being Wilbur, either didn't get that or didn't care. This turned out to be a mistake.

He decided there would now be a true overarching story to the game. Something that would tie all the players together and raise the stakes--all written by him, of course. His plan turned out to be a group of "badass" anime stereotypes--I mean, assassins, that would act as a conglomerate mega-boss. Mostly they would beat the shit out of the players, know they're every move, require a lot of in-game resources to beat one at a time, etc. A lot of Palpatine bullshit, but maybe worthwhile if it saved the game.

>>49695677
Fun at your expense, I think.

>>49695708
There was just one problem. Wilbur had delayed his plan for months. And now the game was coming back to life on its own. No one felt a need to be a part of his not-Naruto circlejerk, and that just wouldn't stand. So he convinced a player to hand over one of their characters as a hostage. Because the game had been going for years, and because we were a younger bunch, we'd gotten attached to some of the characters. It was basic emotional manipulation/blackmail: Take the princess and goad the players into rescuing her. So we had to participate or never see the character again. Another mistake.

Because, while we may have been annoyed but willing to play ball, Wilbur wouldn't shift his lazy ass into gear. Whole months went by between quest updates. People started getting annoyed, especially because Wilbur and his pals wouldn't stop shilling the story in freeform. It became the only thing people could talk about. At the same time, Wilbur tried to introduce an obvious spy into the PCs, botched it horribly, but kept at it anyway because he's about as stubborn as a mule.

Months into the stagnant questline, which has done more to drain enthusiasm than bolster it, a recruiting drive manages to bring a new wave of players. They have no attachment to the hostage and a few of them start sucking up to Wilbur. Now at this point it's become obvious that Wilbur is pissed at some of us older players for not loving his baby. Fewer and fewer of us even bother going on his quests anymore because it's all buildup and no real payoff. So, on a quest filled out mostly by new players, he finally brings in the hostage. Who apparently has been forced to start working for the bad guys.

>>49695577
>I'm not sure how you interpret it as a brag. If it's not you it must have been my bad at phrasing. My intent was neutral remark at best and self deprecating at worse.
You were self deprecating.
But also were at least bragging about how far you're willing to go to win and, by stating that you will shit over someone's life, you are asserting you ability to do so, which could also be seen as a brag.

You stated your post in such a way that others could easily interpret it as implying you were a good debater or a "winning" debater.
But you did not implicitly assert that or brag about it.

>>49695724
Then Wilbur lets his new friends kill her.

Now, maybe he'd gambled that this would draw in the new blood while getting rid of us older problem players, or maybe it was meant to unite the players into beating the bad guys. All it did was make us older folk angry and drive a wedge between the groups. All of that bullshit, all of that buildup, and he sacrifices the only stake we had in the game on making the newbies feel good and involved. He got pissed that we were pissed, of course, blaming us for not accepting that the newer players had earned the kill. Nevermind that it was his fault for involving the hostage for no good reason. Or that he could have sacrificed one of his completely interchangable assassins instead. Before you accuse me of being a sore loser, there's this other tiny little detail: Wilbur had promised the hostage's player that he was merely borrowing the character. It would be returned to the player once its purpose had been fulfilled. Well, I guess he wasn't technically lying: We got a corpse back.

It broke the game. Older players were disgusted with the storyline, whether those who'd been involved or the ones just sick of hearing about it non-stop. The newer players rallied around Wilbur, which fragmented the player base hard. Most of the older players drifted off elsewhere, leaving Wilbur to try and prop up his game with the newbies. Surprise, it didn't work; there weren't enough of them, or maybe they weren't engaged enough, or maybe he was just pissed off at finally being called out as a royal elitist idiot. Everything collapsed, and I have no doubt in my mind that he still blames all of us for it.

>>49695698
I honestly don't know what to tell you anymore. Repeating things enough times won't make them any more true.

>>49695716
I'm having fun, if anyone else also has fun is irrelevant to me, whether it is at my expense or not doesn't change it either.

>>49695733
I see what you mean now. I guess how far I'm willing to go could be interpreted as a brag to some people. I guess it's a matter of perspective, since if I said "I'm willing to practice 20 hours a day to become the best pianist that ever lived" no one would assume that I'm the best pianist that ever lived, or that I implied that. However, winning debates is not a high achievement, so it could feel like I'm claiming that I win debates. I meant that remark only to express how far I'm willing to go, not that I always accomplish that goal.

>>49695817
>I honestly don't know what to tell you anymore.
. Come on, wheres your drive where's the "shitting on my whole life" that was promised.

>>49695855
It's pretty hard to shit on someone's whole life when you don't know anything about them.
Besides, somewhere along the line I stopped thinking of them as a person and more like some poorly codded MMO NPC.

>>49695887
21 comments,So you're good at debating as long as you know someone well enough to throw personal shit in their face instead of arguing points. Are you actually autistic?

>>49695817
>I'm willing to practice 20 hours a day to become the best pianist that ever lived

Shit analogy because you say "become"
You never said you wanted to "be" the best debater

>>49695917
I'm convinced you don't actually read my posts, do you just count them and post the number of them and then some in an ad hominem for good measure? Care to point to the part in this whole thread where I claimed to be good at debating?

>>49695922
Shit reading comprehension.
Trivia time.
Did this faggot say:
1) I'll shit on your whole life to win.
2) I win by shitting on your whole life.

Winner gets a free (You)!

That succubu a cute!

>>49695986
22 comments
>Try debating something with me, I'll shit on your whole life to win.

Stop repeating yourself you know what you claimed and you know you've been proven wrong.

>>49695817
I am >>49695733
>if I said "I'm willing to practice 20 hours a day to become the best pianist that ever lived" no one would assume that I'm the best pianist that ever lived, or that I implied that.
No. But they could assume that you were bragging about how willing you are to practice or how much you practice.

File: ya idiot.jpg (37KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x480px

>>49694116
>>I'll shit on your whole life to win.
>win an argument
>attack your opponent / bring emotional arguments

>>49696036
I realize you're not very smart, but this has been explained in depth very clearly a few times already. I didn't claim to be good at debating. I claimed I'm willing to go as far as shitting on someone's whole life to win a debate, that is very different from being good at debating. Let me explain it to you with an analogy.
If I claim that I'm willing to train 20 hours a day in order to win at the Olympics, and I claiming that I'm the best participant at the Olympics and that I'll win?

>>49696044
You are correct, I did say " I guess how far I'm willing to go could be interpreted as a brag to some people." which directly agrees with your point.

>>49696118
>Try debating something with me, I'll shit on your whole life to win.

You tried that analogy already, it didnt fly. You bragged about being smart on the internet and couldn't back it up with evidence. you are an idiot end of story.

>>49696138
Oh and that's 23 comments.still no evidence of intelligence or debating skill.

>>49696118
>You are correct
>>Point
><Evidence why point is wrong
>>You're right
...and everyone's fun is over.
Thank you and good night.

>>49696118
Save this thread and review it in a year. It couldn't possibly hurt since you're obviously winning, right?

>>49696138
The analogy worked just fine to express my point, it is your ability to understand it that didn't work. I tried to change it up so that maybe with different concepts you'd be able to grasp it, but apparently that's not possible.
The fact that you're too stupid to realize why your argument is invalid even after I've explained it all these times proves that I am smarter than you.

>>49696171
You son of a bitch.
Although you that was a bit clever you know it's a fallacy, you just claimed a point that was equal to a point I made previously. That is not equivalent to me agreeing with a point that you made that contradicted one I had made. I'm going to keep debating a point I know is wrong but I won't contradict myself because you said something I had said before.

>>49696227
you've missed the point. My point for debating is to have fun. A debate isn't fun if you don't do it to win. However, the goal is to have fun. If you don't try to win, you don't have fun. If you try to win and win, you had fun. If you try to win and lose, you had fun.

>>49696230
24 comments.
No, it doesn't work at all. what were you trying to say then, if you weren't claiming to be good at debating? That you throw tantrums? That you bounce and squeak until people let you win arguments? hardly the behavior of "that asshole who's smarter than everyone else" is it?

>>49696283
Again with those mental gymnastics. I was trying to say that I will go to those lengths in order to win in a debate. That has been said before. If you were better at understanding what you read this would have ended when you were on about comment 5 or so.

>>49696312
25 comment
Right so throwing tantrums. You think your smart because your friends/family let you win arguments to stop you from "shitting on their whole life"

File: 9845789089678.png (733KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1366x768px

>>49694424
>For example: if the other side gives up on arguing that counts as a win.
That's like a boxer running from the ring and hiding somewhere, then claiming he wins because his opponent can't hit him. Sure he's avoiding the lose condition of the match but he's also breaking the rules and missing the point of the sport entirely.

An argument is a communication game. It works under the basic rule that both sides understand each other and use what the other side gives them. The win condition in an argument is getting your opponent to agree with you. One side quitting is not a win for anyone. Sure you were never convinced of their argument but you also failed to convince them and if you were the one bringing shit into the conversation that's on you.

If the boxer's opponent decided to put off the game because I don't think anyone would call that a lose. He's there to punch a guy not play hide and seek, the other guy has clearly misinterpreted what boxing is supposed to be.

>tl;dr
Throwing shit in an argument, blocking out opposing arguments and claiming victory when your opponent is done with your shit is not skill, it's playing the game wrong.

>>49693618
I've never met someone like that personally, but I believe it is possible.

The closest I've gotten is from back from a period in my life where I was addicted to ERP. I joined a not-overtly-lewd game that was nevertheless hosted on F-list. The DM had, a while before the game started, sorta doxxed me in the main /tg/ chat. It's that "sorta" that makes me not call her a bad person, though.

>>49696338
Is there an Olympics for mental gymnastics? Because you might actually have a chance at a medal there.
Crossing the line of what arguments will hurt the other person is not even close to throwing a tantrum. I don't have be smart to know that I'm smarter than you. At least I'm able to follow a simple conversation.
This is how I imagine you since you keep parroting the same things even after I've told you multiple times in different ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH0hikcwjIA

>>49694116
>I screech louder than the competition, so I'm right
Kek

>>49696433
26 comments
Oh it seems i've struck a nerve, So when you lose an argument at home do you get upset and shout "mental gymnastics" "mental gymnastics" until you get your own way

>>49696597
And now I regret reading the thread, you really are utterly retarted "That's me" anon.

>>49696601
No, I don't get upset. I do call them like I see them though. So you non-ironically think that not avoiding hurting someone's feelings is the same as throwing a tantrum. It's one thing to throw ad hominems because it's fun, but if your every post is only that it gets pretty old fast.

>>49696597
No, I don't mean that I'll just start insulting someone until I win. I mean I won't stop myself from supporting my with something that will hurt the other person. Insulting someone is just the fun in between.

>>49696816
27 comments
>Try debating something with me, I'll shit on your whole life to win.
sounds like throwing tantrums to me chief

>>49696816
Kek, I've read your "arguments" lad, it's all baseless insults and insistence you're smarter than most people. Kinda sad

>>49694116
If you need to insult the other party, you're neither intelligent, nor good at debating, although you are an asshole.

>>49696834
Maybe you haven't actually looked up what tantrum means on a dictionary? If you did and didn't understand it wouldn't surprise me seeing you've had trouble understanding most of this thread.

>>49696887
>you're smarter than most people.
That was only to the guy repeating >your not smart
over and over.

>>49696888
With shitting on someone's who life I did not mean insulting them. Who the fuck gets hurt from insults anyway?

>>49696952
27 comments
>I'll shit on your whole life to win.
>I'll shit on your whole life
That is throwing a tantrum.

>>49696952
Generally people with empathy who value other people's opinions. If you've never been hurt by an insult, you may be a sociopath.

>>49696996
Probably autistic. Low empathy, unable to read social ques, trying to understand human interaction as a game(if you stop talking to me, I win.). This dude is defo on the spectrum.

>>49696968
>>49696996
it's been fun but i gotta go, mommy says i wont get chicken tenddies for dinner if im late for middle school again

>>49697260
28 comments.
Awe come on dude make it to 30 at least.

>>49693707
>He's racist, sexist, smug and easily angered. He also the only good DM I've ever seen.
I guarantee that you're the problem.

>>49696968
I'll give you an example. I was having a debate with someone over some legal injustice and they said people should take it in their own hands to do justice. I showed them that video of mob justice where this girl gets lit on fire and made them feel like shit.

>>49696996
I probably am a bit of a sociopath, not very empathetic. It's probably my mild autism though.

>>49697273
That wasn't me.

>>49697340
28 comments
>That wasn't me
Shame, he sounded like you but smarter.


So your autistic edgy and throw tantrums. I can see why people let you win arguments.

>>49697400
>Shame, he sounded like you but smarter.
Not gonna lie, kek'd a little.

>So your autistic edgy and throw tantrums.
Pretty much, yeah, except throwing tantrums.
What's with your obsession with tantrums, anyway?

No one lets me win arguments.

>>49697477
29 comments.
>No one lets me win arguments.
lol. yes they do, bet you were good a soccer too when your dad was the coach.

>>49697530
Naw, I sucked at soccer, can't kick a ball for shit.
My dad was an aerospace engineer not a soccer coach.
Is there someone you imagine me as when you come up with these insults?

Austimus Maximus is going for 30! You can do it!

>>49697530
I was shitty at soccer even when my dad was the coach.

>>49697579
30 comments, congratulations you're autistic

That's nice, want to give me your dads credit card number while your writing all about your life anyway.

>>49697618
4834 1400 1108 1348
318 06/17

What do you need it for?

>>49696402
But a debate is hardly ever about bringing the opponent to acknowledge your worldview over his. It's more about presenting two opposite world views, supporting it with proof and THEN pointing out the flaws in the opposing argument. Your boxing analogy isn't very accurate if you think the end of the debate is when one of the two opponents cedes their position, as this rarely occurs over the course of a single debate.
There's no point in trying to convince someone you know will most likely retain their worldview if that's your only intent. The victor of a debate, if there even is such a thing, is determined by a combination of how well one can sway the entire audience to their point of view as well as the factual validity (which is unfortunately often difficult to ascertain).

One does not need to counterpoint all of the opponent's arguments to walk away as the better debater, especially if one does not deem those arguments to be worth discussing anymore to strengthen the position of their worldview. Whether or not this is the correct decision is for the audience to decide.

>>49697644
Enjoy you're dragon dildos, senpai

>>49697943
thanks, what kind are they?

>>49694424
>>49695581
>>49696402
>>49697924

Ok guys. Just to say that, in my opinion a debate (not the freaking class debate which is a competition bullshit) is not a competition.
The point of a debate is to, on a subject, find or approach truth (if possible or at least reduce errors or wrongs).

So:
You don't win by being right at the end and the other is false
Either both win because you find a common ground that you find (being one of the starting opinions or another ones completly
Or both win if you find that each opinions was in fact just as good as the other, both being just points of view

So, please guys, try to understand that you don't WIN a debate just by having the other one give up on you. (so, I understand that sometimes you want to give up given their sheer amount of stupidity)

>>49693618

Wasn't virt supposed to be a pretty good GM?

He tries to pick my pockets IRL every time we come across to prove that he can. He brags how did time when I just got out of my nappies (he's a year younger than me and the incident he refers was him spending a night in the cell for trying to tackle a lamp post) and invites himself to every party anywhere, including crashing a wedding and stealing a slice of the cake before being chased out. Yet he has a knack for storytelling and worldbuilding so what the hoohaa.

>>49698022
You can have debates to find the truth, or you can have debates for fun. There's no winner in a debate to find the truth, since it's not a game. There is a winner in a debate for fun, since it is a game.