- Nov 11, 2017
- 784
- 2,095
we may need a separate category for ai
- Thread starter anon280
- Start date
- Nov 20, 2017
- 6,038
- 14,322
Can't do that as I don't wear them, but sure you can do it and chill.
Last edited:
- Aug 3, 2017
- 1,190
- 2,465
- Jun 10, 2017
- 11,458
- 17,475
Yeah, I have a new fan boy! 
Don't be jealous, you can nothing against my marvelous beard.
Don't be jealous, you can nothing against my marvelous beard.
- Nov 11, 2017
- 784
- 2,095
not talking about the same thing. what won't happen is it being a problem - given there's already a system to curb it
- Aug 3, 2017
- 1,190
- 2,465
If you're going to change subjects that's up to you, I'll stick to talking about the same thing.
- Nov 11, 2017
- 784
- 2,095
try nuance. they related but not the sameIf you're going to change subjects that's up to you, I'll stick to talking about the same thing.
- Oct 29, 2018
- 1,449
- 1,863
A subject change is not a nuance any more than a brick is a feather. A nuance would be the difference between happy and elated.
The drawback of trying to sound intelligent is that if you try and fail...
- Nov 11, 2017
- 784
- 2,095
this is any example of why when u take something out of context, and run with it, the truth is lost in the fog of constructed narratives:
morphnet's original comment:
we should know what is this "something"
His juxtaposition of, "i'm not saying someone won't ask for [something]." with "something that won't happen, ever.", made it look like i'm changing the subject, that i'm saying "no one would ask for something, as disagreed/disliked here, like my OP."
Note he linked the Rejected Requests subforum. It's an important distinction, nevertheless how obvious, that Rejected is the opposite of Completed. Which should further my point, that we won't have a feature like that - the example the dude sent is in the Rejected Features. My subject was never about someone asking for X, where x could be elaborated on by morphnet , but i'm going with "subforum requests". my subj was:
tldr; it's fine if such things get rejected. there's already Features Request to prevent any further problems. so what if someone has a potentially dumb request, it'll be reviewed, we won't know til we look at it.
full breakdown of the misunderstanding:
---------------------------------------------
On to the "try nuance" snarky correction, snarky i guess to match contempt at me sounding intelligent,. thanks, i guess - wasn't trying to be anything. but u been one of those flies in this thread pestering me from the start of this chat. everything you say has to be loaded with the smell of hurt-individual.
but i think there's something worth looking here:
1. I didn't make a subject change.
2. morphnet mis-contextualised what i said.
i said to morphnet The Deceitful to "try nuance" after he misinterpreted my statement about changing subjects, which I explained above the dotted line.
morphnet's original comment:
we should know what is this "something"
so something here is "more requests". and note my sarcasm implies "it's not a big deal", i.e. not a big deal = [i see] no problem [with more requests].
His juxtaposition of, "i'm not saying someone won't ask for [something]." with "something that won't happen, ever.", made it look like i'm changing the subject, that i'm saying "no one would ask for something, as disagreed/disliked here, like my OP."
Note he linked the Rejected Requests subforum. It's an important distinction, nevertheless how obvious, that Rejected is the opposite of Completed
. Which should further my point, that we won't have a feature like that - the example the dude sent is in the Rejected Features. My subject was never about someone asking for X, where x could be elaborated on by morphnet , but i'm going with "subforum requests". my subj was:tldr; it's fine if such things get rejected. there's already Features Request to prevent any further problems. so what if someone has a potentially dumb request, it'll be reviewed, we won't know til we look at it.
full breakdown of the misunderstanding:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
---------------------------------------------
On to the "try nuance" snarky correction, snarky i guess to match contempt at me sounding intelligent,
. thanks, i guess - wasn't trying to be anything. but u been one of those flies in this thread pestering me from the start of this chat. everything you say has to be loaded with the smell of hurt-individual.but i think there's something worth looking here:
Yes, I agree.
1. I didn't make a subject change.
2. morphnet mis-contextualised what i said.
i said to morphnet The Deceitful to "try nuance" after he misinterpreted my statement about changing subjects, which I explained above the dotted line.
the subject being what he thought i was referring to; "making a request like mines being a problem"; vs what i actually meant; "i don't see making a request like that as a problem."If you're going to change subjects that's up to you, I'll stick to talking about the same thing.
3. "nuance", in
should have been "context" to be more clear on what I meant. I used the word nuance loosely because yall got a very dogpile culture in discussions, and i think nuance is always important in discussions, so i just flung that out, pretty much being done with this thread cuz of the attitude i was met with.
Last edited:
- Nov 20, 2017
- 6,038
- 14,322
- Nov 11, 2017
- 784
- 2,095
- Nov 20, 2017
- 6,038
- 14,322
- Nov 11, 2017
- 784
- 2,095
- Oct 29, 2018
- 1,449
- 1,863
- Nov 20, 2017
- 6,038
- 14,322
- Aug 3, 2017
- 1,190
- 2,465
Where oh where to begin? I guess first this statementthis is any example of why when u take something out of context, and run with it, the truth is lost in the fog of constructed narratives:
morphnet's original comment:
View attachment 4655624
we should know what is this "something"
so something here is "more requests". and note my sarcasm implies "it's not a big deal", i.e. not a big deal = [i see] no problem [with more requests].
His juxtaposition of, "i'm not saying someone won't ask for [something]." with "something that won't happen, ever.", made it look like i'm changing the subject, that i'm saying "no one would ask for something, as disagreed/disliked here, like my OP."
Note he linked the Rejected Requests subforum. It's an important distinction, nevertheless how obvious, that Rejected is the opposite of Completed
tldr; it's fine if such things get rejected. there's already Features Request to prevent any further problems. so what if someone has a potentially dumb request, it'll be reviewed, we won't know til we look at it.
full breakdown of the misunderstanding:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
---------------------------------------------
On to the "try nuance" snarky correction, snarky i guess to match contempt at me sounding intelligent,
but i think there's something worth looking here:
Yes, I agree.
1. I didn't make a subject change.
2. morphnet mis-contextualised what i said.
After i said to morphnet The Deceitful to "try nuance" after he misinterpreted my statement about changing subjects, which I explained above the dotted line.
the subject being what he thought i was referring to; "making a request like mines being a problem"; vs what i actually meant; "i don't see making a request like that as a problem."
3. "nuance", in
should have been "context" to be more clear on what I meant. I used the word nuance loosely because yall got a very dogpile culture in discussions, and i think nuance is always important in discussions, so i just flung that out, pretty much being done with this thread cuz of the attitude i was met with.
Gains more meaning and value the more you post....
Now on to your "attempt" to justify and explain....
This describes your reply very accurately. Also I can do wall of text with the best of them.
Talk about taking things out of context. Your reply quotes me and yourself, if you were that worried about context you'd add the full exchange but don't worry I'll do that for you.... So to start
Count said
Your reply
His reply
So at this point Count has made a valid and factual statement, you try to dismiss / discredit it by calling it extreme and Count expands on the point.
Now for your reply and one of the two I quoted
As you can see, you are still refusing to acknowledge the point and can't or won't see it is valid, factual and correct.
Now for my first reply, directed at your second reply calling it extreme and in this one trying to brush it off by claiming he is projecting something that won't ever happen.
The linking of the rejected sub was to give the exact page the post could be found on for reference nothing else, it is followed by the actual post, showing a request for a walkthrough / guide subforum.
Now the point itself should have been made clear there and then, your claim that his statement was extreme was wrong / false / inaccurate, his statement was NOT hypothetical, a what if or a it could kinda / sorta / maybe happen. It was a factual statement backup now by my post showing a request for a subforum.
Anyone able to use the smallest amount of logic is able to see, if you ask for and get a subforum for a tag, others will request ones too and worse use yours as an example of why they should get it when they get turned down.
How about shota / loli, they can get one and hide it from the users who don't want to see that stuff? Also they are ALWAYS using other games on the site as a reason why a banned game should be allowed.
How about vore and gore?
You know there will be at least 10+ threads requesting ntr get moved
Then there's the furry's / furries?
Let's not forget any gay games
and you know they won't forget futa
etc. etc. etc.
So now the staff and mods have a bunch of threads popping up requesting subforum for tags that people don't want to see in the latest update page and many / most using your subforum as a reason to get theirs.
So not even close to extreme
Now we have your next reply to me
Now unless you are intentionally trying to create a way to side track / derail the discussion or you are completely unable to understand the point, there is NO reason to add [something]. We aren't talking about multiple things, points, views, we're talking about requests for subforums. So your reply should have looked like this
"i'm not saying someone won't ask for a subforum. i'm saying it's fine if it's rejected. but feel free to explain why it's a problem"
Now I made the mistake AGAIN of giving someone the benefit of the doubt and assumed [something] was your round about way (for some reason) of saying subforum. So having given you the benefit of the doubt I replied with
https://f95zone.to/threads/we-may-need-a-separate-category-for-ai.248347/post-16474272
Showing your reply to counts statement about other requests saying "won't happen, EVER" and your reply to my proving it will happen with a contradictory answer of "I'm not saying someone won't ask"
So to put it in simple, plain language,
You told count a bunch of people won't ever ask and you told me you're not saying people won't ask.
i.e. two replies contradicting each other.
Now your reply to me
"not talking about the same thing." and "what won't happen is it being a problem" I'll get to "given there's already a system to curb it" later.
"not talking about the same thing." Count was talking about others making requests, You were talking about making requests, I was talking about making requests. If all 3 of us are talking about others making requests and you reply with "not talking about the same thing." that is you trying to change the subject. For context, the subject and the topic are two different things and the subject in this case is: Other people asking for subforums for other tags too.
So if you are no longer talking about that, YOU ARE changing the subject. Which was my next reply
"what won't happen is it being a problem", now this seems to imply that you ARE still talking about others asking so this contradicts the "not talking about the same thing." and at the same time implies that you don't understand the point at all.If you're going to change subjects that's up to you, I'll stick to talking about the same thing.
Now normally it would be hard to keep track of conversations like this, where a person keeps contradicting themselves, giving vague answers and adding parts that can be used to derail or side track but in this case it was sloppy so it didn't work.
Now for "given there's already a system to curb it", you end the reply with a knowingly false statement. How do you know it is a false statement? because we're in a thread dealing with the exact issue. If there was a "system" to curb it, this thread would have been dealt with by that system.
Now your reply to that was
and as you saw by replies NO ONE bought that for a second. Bringing us to your last reply.
So to sum up
Count said : " We don't need 100 sub forums, one for each tag. "
You said : stop with the extreme examples dude, that's never gonna happen - it's a weak hypothetical.
Count said : It's not extreme. You ask for one sub forum, others will ask for others.
You said : it's extreme because u are projecting something that won't happen, ever.
I posted : proof of what count was saying
You replied : i'm not saying someone won't ask for [something]. i'm saying it's fine if it's rejected. but feel free to explain why it's a problem
I replied : pointing out your contradiction
You replied : not talking about the same thing. what won't happen is it being a problem - given there's already a system to curb it
I replied : If you're going to change subjects that's up to you, I'll stick to talking about the same thing.
You replied : try nuance. they related but not the same
So with FULL context, you can clearly see,
Count made a valid factual point, you tried to dismiss it, I posted proving his point and proving your "won't happen ever" wrong, you replied contradicting yourself, I pointed that out, you tried and failed to change subjects (not topics) I pointed that out, you tried again and NO ONE bought it.
sigh and now...
"thanks, i guess - wasn't trying to be anything." shows you didn't understand the point or meaning at all....On to the "try nuance" snarky correction, snarky i guess to match contempt at me sounding intelligent,
1) You're right, you didn't. No one said you did, I said you tried, he pointed out that the attempt is not nuance. It doesn't matter if it failed. This is also why understanding language is important....
A subject change as opposed to THE subject change. I'll leave you to look up the difference.
2) No, not even for a second, also wondering if that "The Deceitful" will stick? coming from you it's a compliment.
Benefit of the doubt out the window....
As up is down excuses go, I give this one 2/10
and now that we got that cleared up... my wall of text is complete!
- Nov 20, 2017
- 6,038
- 14,322
You sure have a lot of time?Where oh where to begin? I guess first this statement
Gains more meaning and value the more you post....
Now on to your "attempt" to justify and explain....
This describes your reply very accurately. Also I can do wall of text with the best of them.
Talk about taking things out of context. Your reply quotes me and yourself, if you were that worried about context you'd add the full exchange but don't worry I'll do that for you.... So to start
Count said
Your reply
His reply
So at this point Count has made a valid and factual statement, you try to dismiss / discredit it by calling it extreme and Count expands on the point.
Now for your reply and one of the two I quoted
As you can see, you are still refusing to acknowledge the point and can't or won't see it is valid, factual and correct.
Now for my first reply, directed at your second reply calling it extreme and in this one trying to brush it off by claiming he is projecting something that won't ever happen.
The linking of the rejected sub was to give the exact page the post could be found on for reference nothing else, it is followed by the actual post, showing a request for a walkthrough / guide subforum.
Now the point itself should have been made clear there and then, your claim that his statement was extreme was wrong / false / inaccurate, his statement was NOT hypothetical, a what if or a it could kinda / sorta / maybe happen. It was a factual statement backup now by my post showing a request for a subforum.
Anyone able to use the smallest amount of logic is able to see, if you ask for and get a subforum for a tag, others will request ones too and worse use yours as an example of why they should get it when they get turned down.
How about shota / loli, they can get one and hide it from the users who don't want to see that stuff? Also they are ALWAYS using other games on the site as a reason why a banned game should be allowed.
How about vore and gore?
You know there will be at least 10+ threads requesting ntr get moved
Then there's the furry's / furries?
Let's not forget any gay games
and you know they won't forget futa
etc. etc. etc.
So now the staff and mods have a bunch of threads popping up requesting subforum for tags that people don't want to see in the latest update page and many / most using your subforum as a reason to get theirs.
So not even close to extreme
Now we have your next reply to me
Now unless you are intentionally trying to create a way to side track / derail the discussion or you are completely unable to understand the point, there is NO reason to add [something]. We aren't talking about multiple things, points, views, we're talking about requests for subforums. So your reply should have looked like this
"i'm not saying someone won't ask for a subforum. i'm saying it's fine if it's rejected. but feel free to explain why it's a problem"
Now I made the mistake AGAIN of giving someone the benefit of the doubt and assumed [something] was your round about way (for some reason) of saying subforum. So having given you the benefit of the doubt I replied with
https://f95zone.to/threads/we-may-need-a-separate-category-for-ai.248347/post-16474272
View attachment 4656274
Showing your reply to counts statement about other requests saying "won't happen, EVER" and your reply to my proving it will happen with a contradictory answer of "I'm not saying someone won't ask"
So to put it in simple, plain language,
You told count a bunch of people won't ever ask and you told me you're not saying people won't ask.
i.e. two replies contradicting each other.
Now your reply to me
"not talking about the same thing." and "what won't happen is it being a problem" I'll get to "given there's already a system to curb it" later.
"not talking about the same thing." Count was talking about others making requests, You were talking about making requests, I was talking about making requests. If all 3 of us are talking about others making requests and you reply with "not talking about the same thing." that is you trying to change the subject. For context, the subject and the topic are two different things and the subject in this case is: Other people asking for subforums for other tags too.
So if you are no longer talking about that, YOU ARE changing the subject. Which was my next reply
"what won't happen is it being a problem", now this seems to imply that you ARE still talking about others asking so this contradicts the "not talking about the same thing." and at the same time implies that you don't understand the point at all.
Now normally it would be hard to keep track of conversations like this, where a person keeps contradicting themselves, giving vague answers and adding parts that can be used to derail or side track but in this case it was sloppy so it didn't work.
Now for "given there's already a system to curb it", you end the reply with a knowingly false statement. How do you know it is a false statement? because we're in a thread dealing with the exact issue. If there was a "system" to curb it, this thread would have been dealt with by that system.
Now your reply to that was
and as you saw by replies NO ONE bought that for a second. Bringing us to your last reply.
So to sum up
Count said : " We don't need 100 sub forums, one for each tag. "
You said : stop with the extreme examples dude, that's never gonna happen - it's a weak hypothetical.
Count said : It's not extreme. You ask for one sub forum, others will ask for others.
You said : it's extreme because u are projecting something that won't happen, ever.
I posted : proof of what count was saying
You replied : i'm not saying someone won't ask for [something]. i'm saying it's fine if it's rejected. but feel free to explain why it's a problem
I replied : pointing out your contradiction
You replied : not talking about the same thing. what won't happen is it being a problem - given there's already a system to curb it
I replied : If you're going to change subjects that's up to you, I'll stick to talking about the same thing.
You replied : try nuance. they related but not the same
So with FULL context, you can clearly see,
Count made a valid factual point, you tried to dismiss it, I posted proving his point and proving your "won't happen ever" wrong, you replied contradicting yourself, I pointed that out, you tried and failed to change subjects (not topics) I pointed that out, you tried again and NO ONE bought it.
sigh and now...
"thanks, i guess - wasn't trying to be anything." shows you didn't understand the point or meaning at all....
1) You're right, you didn't. No one said you did, I said you tried, he pointed out that the attempt is not nuance. It doesn't matter if it failed. This is also why understanding language is important....
A subject change as opposed to THE subject change. I'll leave you to look up the difference.
2) No, not even for a second, also wondering if that "The Deceitful" will stick? coming from you it's a compliment.
Benefit of the doubt out the window....
As up is down excuses go, I give this one 2/10
and now that we got that cleared up... my wall of text is complete!
Some (additional) points for your post:
The 4 and 6 post, who came from a staff member of the site, was written that: A) for this thing we have tags and Latest Updates page and B) many used it. In none of those two post has he written any indication that such a thing may will happen in the future.
Also in post 8, from rusty old me, I've already written than other tags has more games and therefore under the argumention "we have so many games with x, this shall have a subforum" when we already have more games with z and z is also controversial as x is.
I haven't see any argumention about why x shall have a subforum, expect "I want", and z not. Until that is cleared up, it make no sense at all to even argument that one tag become a subforum - Even then it still make no sense, but at least there would be a criterium (other than I want) for this.