Has anyponer ever thought of using a video game to settle an internet argument, like a 1v1 game, fighting or FPS, as a duel of sorts? Is this already a thing? Can we make this happen concurrently with mlpol.net, or would there be too many complications with OPSEC? Posting here, let me know if it should move to /qa/.
Have at you!
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
28 replies and 10 files omitted.
This being mlpol.net, it would only make sense to have the game be Them's Fightin' Herds, come to think of it. Too bad I suck at fighting games, maybe this could be my shot at getting better.
Think about it, if some faggot is still hiding behind their keyboard after getting called out all you really have to say is "Tits or GTFO." Entertainment for everyone, gallantry of anons' honor on full display, what's not to like.
En garde!
Think about it, if some faggot is still hiding behind their keyboard after getting called out all you really have to say is "Tits or GTFO." Entertainment for everyone, gallantry of anons' honor on full display, what's not to like.
En garde!
>>146950
It's not the same as a duel, tbh.
In the era if dueling, every ban was expected to have some degree of martial prowness, or at least be able to fire a gun; the ones who weren't seldom got into duels.
With video games, experience can play a big factor, and the playing field is hardly ever even unless both players are familiar with the game. There's little honor in defeating someone at a game they've never played.
It's not the same as a duel, tbh.
In the era if dueling, every ban was expected to have some degree of martial prowness, or at least be able to fire a gun; the ones who weren't seldom got into duels.
With video games, experience can play a big factor, and the playing field is hardly ever even unless both players are familiar with the game. There's little honor in defeating someone at a game they've never played.
>>146954
That's certainly a fair criticism. I figure that settling on one game could serve to mitigate it to a degree, if everyponer happened to be on board with it. As I've mentioned I myself have never played TFH, nor have I even ever been good at fighting games in general, and would likely get über-pwned at this point if I tried to start something, but I suppose it would be a sacrifice I would be willing to make for the perceived betterment of the community; that being that I had to learn a new game that I wasn't already very good at, and be extra careful about my words until I did so.
The problem, I suppose, that I'm attempting to zero in on and help neutralize is that words tend to be barbed where straight up traded blows aren't, as in it really doesn't matter how many times someone gets ruthlessly BTFO, they'll likely still come back and claim they've been right all along, whereas in a game there's a clear winner, no question, doesn't matter what someone's perspective is on the issue at hand. The defense that's been used so far to oust people that are clearly outsiders up until this point is horsepron, which indeed has proven effective, but not against people that are already horsefuckers, and we still can get into heated disagreements sometimes that seem to drag on long past the time it would take to get rekt in a video game for the whole of the board to see.
Another way around this weakness in the proposed system is that people on imageboards likely know their ways around vidya already, maybe the challengers could agree on a game instead.
[Read more] That's certainly a fair criticism. I figure that settling on one game could serve to mitigate it to a degree, if everyponer happened to be on board with it. As I've mentioned I myself have never played TFH, nor have I even ever been good at fighting games in general, and would likely get über-pwned at this point if I tried to start something, but I suppose it would be a sacrifice I would be willing to make for the perceived betterment of the community; that being that I had to learn a new game that I wasn't already very good at, and be extra careful about my words until I did so.
The problem, I suppose, that I'm attempting to zero in on and help neutralize is that words tend to be barbed where straight up traded blows aren't, as in it really doesn't matter how many times someone gets ruthlessly BTFO, they'll likely still come back and claim they've been right all along, whereas in a game there's a clear winner, no question, doesn't matter what someone's perspective is on the issue at hand. The defense that's been used so far to oust people that are clearly outsiders up until this point is horsepron, which indeed has proven effective, but not against people that are already horsefuckers, and we still can get into heated disagreements sometimes that seem to drag on long past the time it would take to get rekt in a video game for the whole of the board to see.
Another way around this weakness in the proposed system is that people on imageboards likely know their ways around vidya already, maybe the challengers could agree on a game instead.
>>146970
Rivals Of Aether is a better choice, anyone can make characters for that game and get them working in a high-speed technical platform fighter that's better than Smash Bros.
Rivals Of Aether is a better choice, anyone can make characters for that game and get them working in a high-speed technical platform fighter that's better than Smash Bros.
>>146970
Asinine. Be careful with your words, unless you're willing to duke it out in vidya? That a game should have more merit than the presented ideas? That detractors who are immune to horsepussy can otherwise be goaded into a 'duel' to 'fix' something (profit?)? Get fucked
Asinine. Be careful with your words, unless you're willing to duke it out in vidya? That a game should have more merit than the presented ideas? That detractors who are immune to horsepussy can otherwise be goaded into a 'duel' to 'fix' something (profit?)? Get fucked
>>146972
Watch your words, son. Wouldn't want to see you get assblasted in front of all your poner friends.
Watch your words, son. Wouldn't want to see you get assblasted in front of all your poner friends.
>>146972
Again with the anger, pal. It's a wonder you don't routinely get your ass beat IRL. Or do you?
Again with the anger, pal. It's a wonder you don't routinely get your ass beat IRL. Or do you?
The only game that would work for this sort of thing is Besti. Anyone who might ask how a winner would be determined would be instantly banned, because they obviously don't belong here.
>>146979
Look here bitchfist, if you cant win an argument you dont deserve to 'win' based on arbitrary video game 'skills', especially when video games are degenerate in the first place
>Skill at chess is a sign of refinement, but mastery of chess is the sign of a wasted life -Unknown
Forgive me if I am unwilling to cede victory in an argument to someone who can only win at a contest of button mashing.
Look here bitchfist, if you cant win an argument you dont deserve to 'win' based on arbitrary video game 'skills', especially when video games are degenerate in the first place
>Skill at chess is a sign of refinement, but mastery of chess is the sign of a wasted life -Unknown
Forgive me if I am unwilling to cede victory in an argument to someone who can only win at a contest of button mashing.
>>146981
Case in point. Mr. Uber samefag thinks hes winning an argument by refusing to argue. This is precisely why it should never boil down to a glorified thumb-wrestling match, because that places thumb skills above reason. Get fucked 2x
Case in point. Mr. Uber samefag thinks hes winning an argument by refusing to argue. This is precisely why it should never boil down to a glorified thumb-wrestling match, because that places thumb skills above reason. Get fucked 2x
>>146982
Time for some damage control, huh. Never got called out before? To put your money where your mouth is? You just pussied out like a fucking bitch dude.
Time for some damage control, huh. Never got called out before? To put your money where your mouth is? You just pussied out like a fucking bitch dude.
>>146983
>u wont play a game instead of debate = you're a bitch
Please continue with your enlightened commentary
>u wont play a game instead of debate = you're a bitch
Please continue with your enlightened commentary
>>146984
How's this for commentary. You know where to find me if you want to beg for daddy's cock again, faggot.
How's this for commentary. You know where to find me if you want to beg for daddy's cock again, faggot.
>>146986
It's sounding like you might be willing to try to dig around and doxx someone over a bit of smack talk, would someone be right in the case that they should make that kind of assumption? You're gonna do whatever you're gonna do, but you really need help, buddy.
It's sounding like you might be willing to try to dig around and doxx someone over a bit of smack talk, would someone be right in the case that they should make that kind of assumption? You're gonna do whatever you're gonna do, but you really need help, buddy.
>>146988
I'd love to see you validate any of those assertions, with the little I've said. Seems an awful lot like projecting, except I cant fathom where either of us are operating as you claim. Are you sure about who needs help?
I'd love to see you validate any of those assertions, with the little I've said. Seems an awful lot like projecting, except I cant fathom where either of us are operating as you claim. Are you sure about who needs help?
>>146989
Sounded rather threatening, pal. I can't really tell how far you'd be willing to go sometimes tbh; as in with what little interaction we've had I sometimes can't tell if you've got the anger to kill a guy. You come out fucking swinging, mate. Sure would be appreciative if we could tone it down a bit in the future, with or without a fight to show who's boss.
Sounded rather threatening, pal. I can't really tell how far you'd be willing to go sometimes tbh; as in with what little interaction we've had I sometimes can't tell if you've got the anger to kill a guy. You come out fucking swinging, mate. Sure would be appreciative if we could tone it down a bit in the future, with or without a fight to show who's boss.
>>146990
Again, I'd love to see you validate those assertions. Point to the spot on the doll where I touched you.
Again, I'd love to see you validate those assertions. Point to the spot on the doll where I touched you.
1621643250.png (440.0 KB, 3000x4059, 42967640-69FE-4AF1-A095-D311974BB717.png)
>>146994
Don’t be silly. There are plenty of friendly ponies here who want to hear what you have to say
Don’t be silly. There are plenty of friendly ponies here who want to hear what you have to say
>>146995
Thanks brother, but if the above behavior is the kind that's deemed okay on this website I don't think I should be anywhere close to it, real world consequences or no. Anyway, I think I'm just gonna go take a break for now. Peace be with you poners.
Thanks brother, but if the above behavior is the kind that's deemed okay on this website I don't think I should be anywhere close to it, real world consequences or no. Anyway, I think I'm just gonna go take a break for now. Peace be with you poners.
>>146972
It's no more asinine than an actual duel, tbh. Shooting someone doesn't prove an argument.
I don't think duels are really meant to resolve arguments in the first place though, just prove "honor".
It's no more asinine than an actual duel, tbh. Shooting someone doesn't prove an argument.
I don't think duels are really meant to resolve arguments in the first place though, just prove "honor".
>>146996
Could be worse, he could shriek "NIGEL!!!" every time someone with a british flag says something he doesn't like just because it's usually (but not always) me.
Could be worse, he could shriek "NIGEL!!!" every time someone with a british flag says something he doesn't like just because it's usually (but not always) me.
>>146950
So this idea is directly stolen from an anon on a comment related to Spike's reasoning to everyone else, how as a king all/many issues should be in song.
Using song, music, and singing (15.ai poner voices maybe) to demonstrate your points and counter points. So that the main ideas are present and why and how.
Afterwords...
Perhaps an anonymous co-authored (depending on how many sides of an issue is at play) song(s) to open new opportunities?
So that the lyrics (possible metronome and other factors maybe visual direction as well) and points to be considered is at the pinnacle of what they could be.
Breathing life into a song that has technical and logical application value as well. Memes that transcends the so called triad of meme etymology.
In pones it's a group effort at times. This is to attempt to create the best of ideas. So a bitter moment is always accompanied with superior works.
So this idea is directly stolen from an anon on a comment related to Spike's reasoning to everyone else, how as a king all/many issues should be in song.
Using song, music, and singing (15.ai poner voices maybe) to demonstrate your points and counter points. So that the main ideas are present and why and how.
Afterwords...
Perhaps an anonymous co-authored (depending on how many sides of an issue is at play) song(s) to open new opportunities?
So that the lyrics (possible metronome and other factors maybe visual direction as well) and points to be considered is at the pinnacle of what they could be.
Breathing life into a song that has technical and logical application value as well. Memes that transcends the so called triad of meme etymology.
In pones it's a group effort at times. This is to attempt to create the best of ideas. So a bitter moment is always accompanied with superior works.
>>147268
Not crying, buddy, at least not right now, though I suppose you couldn't say the same about the abject display of yours over on /qa/.
I'm going to try and level with you here anon. I left because your tone was rather ambiguous about whether or not you intended to try to doxx me, which is something I take very seriously, and is something that I believe an upstanding and honorable anon, given this type of situation, would immediately and unequivocally deny upon being asked about it, with no doubt left in the other anon's mind that that nothing of that sort would come of the situation; and that you didn't, to me, speaks volumes about your present character and to a desperate state of mind.
So let me be perfectly clear about what would happen if you were to get up to doing something like that, and I caught wind of it, the consequences of which behavior being listed as follows: your actions would be brought to light and you would be found out, if not that night, or the next week, or month, or year, or decade, and you would be made to pay for whatever damages might be accrued relative to what I had suffered thusly. Just so we're clear on that subject.
As for the other kinds of abusive rhetoric that you seem to think is okay of spewing whenever you feel like it due and leading to the disgrace that you've suffered, I don't enjoy lowering myself to namecalling in an attempt to resolve petty disputes online or anywhere really, which is why you've been let off easy on that one. Please note that you're contributing nothing to the well-being of the community or exchange of ideas by doing so, and are pretty much only making an ass of yourself that nobody wants to be around, but I suppose you already knew that. Still hope you get help, but that's really more for your own sake.
[Read more] Not crying, buddy, at least not right now, though I suppose you couldn't say the same about the abject display of yours over on /qa/.
I'm going to try and level with you here anon. I left because your tone was rather ambiguous about whether or not you intended to try to doxx me, which is something I take very seriously, and is something that I believe an upstanding and honorable anon, given this type of situation, would immediately and unequivocally deny upon being asked about it, with no doubt left in the other anon's mind that that nothing of that sort would come of the situation; and that you didn't, to me, speaks volumes about your present character and to a desperate state of mind.
So let me be perfectly clear about what would happen if you were to get up to doing something like that, and I caught wind of it, the consequences of which behavior being listed as follows: your actions would be brought to light and you would be found out, if not that night, or the next week, or month, or year, or decade, and you would be made to pay for whatever damages might be accrued relative to what I had suffered thusly. Just so we're clear on that subject.
As for the other kinds of abusive rhetoric that you seem to think is okay of spewing whenever you feel like it due and leading to the disgrace that you've suffered, I don't enjoy lowering myself to namecalling in an attempt to resolve petty disputes online or anywhere really, which is why you've been let off easy on that one. Please note that you're contributing nothing to the well-being of the community or exchange of ideas by doing so, and are pretty much only making an ass of yourself that nobody wants to be around, but I suppose you already knew that. Still hope you get help, but that's really more for your own sake.
>>147269
>I dont like a thing, and you said mean words, so I think you might do a thing, and you didnt DENY you might do a thing. Why didnt you deny it? Dont you know that I think you should deny it? Well anyway you BETTER NOT or I'll find out! And I'll be mad!
Uhm, arent you supposed to be promoting vidya duels? I see you figured out how to put all your responses in one reply (so far) so kudos to you. But seriously, maybe you didnt notice, but you're the one coming up with all sorts of paranoid delusions because someone on the internet refuted your pwecious ideah.
It's pretty obvious who needs help.
>I dont like a thing, and you said mean words, so I think you might do a thing, and you didnt DENY you might do a thing. Why didnt you deny it? Dont you know that I think you should deny it? Well anyway you BETTER NOT or I'll find out! And I'll be mad!
Uhm, arent you supposed to be promoting vidya duels? I see you figured out how to put all your responses in one reply (so far) so kudos to you. But seriously, maybe you didnt notice, but you're the one coming up with all sorts of paranoid delusions because someone on the internet refuted your pwecious ideah.
It's pretty obvious who needs help.
>>147270
Not gonna play these games with you buddy, I'm going to consider this conversation over for now. Have a good one.
Not gonna play these games with you buddy, I'm going to consider this conversation over for now. Have a good one.
>>146950
Settling debates with videogame duels has to be the most retarded thing I've heard this year, and here's why.
Duels with swords give people a chance to get their anger out of their system, display their strength/speed/skill to onlookers, and punish those who have done them wrong. Duels with pistols give people a chance to gun down foes that might otherwise be backed up by gangs and families eager to get into blood fueds with your family/home, while ensuring the swiftest gunman in the west reigns supreme. It lets men back their words with violence and protect their reputation with violence, it lets men intimidate others into not risking duels over anything not legitimately important enough to risk your life over. Duels can end in bloodshed or simply end after a victor spares the loser. Without duels, someone can slander you endlessly with no means of counterattack beyond responding in kind, engaging in a costly legal battle (that might not even be possible if you don't share a country/legal system), hiring a private investigator to find something you can use to destroy your attacker's credibility in the eyes of the mob the attacker is sending after you, none of these options let you beat the shit out of your slanderer or kill her.
If some libtard cuck insisted whites shouldn't exist and backstabbed you in Team Fortress 2 to "prove it", would that genuinely make his jewish argument valid? If some muslim insisted his demonic Baphomet (aka Mohammed)-worshipping people are victims and Christians are oppressors and then facerolled your ass in Street Fighter V using unfair unreactable 50-50 mixups would that make his idiocy remotely tolerable by any civilized society that's worth being called rational? If some small-time gaming league was paid by leftists to "beat bullies" and kill+teabag gamers unafraid to talk about the dancing israelis, would that actually matter to the validity of any argument?
Surely you can't actually believe that. Surely, you jest.
In a rational society that prioritizes facts and logic over physical force, duels are an outdated notion with few benefits and plenty of downsides, such as the ways they can be used to bypass the legal system and let the deadliest criminals escape justice. Duels work best in societies with limited or no police, an era of Murder Warrants and "Wanted: Dead Or Alive" posters. An era where the able-bodied common man is encouraged to use force for the good of his community and the protection of its people. Not an era where this is best left to highly-trained professionals, or a corrupt era where the use of force is exclusively a privilege only the rich and their enforcers can enjoy without dire legal consequences from the revenge-obsessed jewish """justice""" industry.
There is no risk of death involved in gaming. There is no risk of humiliation in the eyes of the mainstream public as most people don't really give a shit about the finer points of hardcore gaming or what separates a clever trick from a cheap trick. A hard-working man with a job can get muscles from physical labour, muscles that would be useless trying to beat some cheap bullshit in TF2 from some NEET with nothing stopping him from dedicating almost all waking hours alive to the game, but excellent when used to beat the stupid out of some antifa NPC shouting "fashist" until he's blue in the face.
A white man who takes care of his physical and mental health and prepares for """a potential zombie apocalypse""" has important things to do. Things more important than gaming for hours every single day. Things more important than getting dragged into some esports bullshit over arguments that can stand on their own merits.
We are right, in case you haven't noticed. White people are right to say they should have a place to live. White people are right to say their civilization should be protected from jewish corruption. White people are right to say they should create a place for their children and secure their future. We don't need to get into silly gaming feuds that could make a few gooming-obsessed retards respect us more or backfire and make them think we're a bunch of faggots. We're fucking white. We are truth. We are reason. We don't need this bullshit. Our arguments work because they make more sense than weaponised leftist confusion. Our information spreads despite the best efforts of the (((globalists))) because it is truthful.
I shouldn't need to beat some twat in a game of Pokemon before he'll give logic a chance and admit the smokestacks at Aushwitz aren't even connected to the main building or its so-called "gas chambers" with wooden doors.
Please don't claim that I'm being overly harsh or hostile to your idiotic idea. I've tried to cut out personal insults towards you where possible, and you might notice that I've never once insinuated that you're a jewish fedboy here to start retarded arguments and play the needlessly-attacked oppressed victim in need of rescue when rightfully criticized. You genuinely need to think of better ones if you want to help white people. Get your head out of your ass and try harder.
[Read more] Settling debates with videogame duels has to be the most retarded thing I've heard this year, and here's why.
Duels with swords give people a chance to get their anger out of their system, display their strength/speed/skill to onlookers, and punish those who have done them wrong. Duels with pistols give people a chance to gun down foes that might otherwise be backed up by gangs and families eager to get into blood fueds with your family/home, while ensuring the swiftest gunman in the west reigns supreme. It lets men back their words with violence and protect their reputation with violence, it lets men intimidate others into not risking duels over anything not legitimately important enough to risk your life over. Duels can end in bloodshed or simply end after a victor spares the loser. Without duels, someone can slander you endlessly with no means of counterattack beyond responding in kind, engaging in a costly legal battle (that might not even be possible if you don't share a country/legal system), hiring a private investigator to find something you can use to destroy your attacker's credibility in the eyes of the mob the attacker is sending after you, none of these options let you beat the shit out of your slanderer or kill her.
If some libtard cuck insisted whites shouldn't exist and backstabbed you in Team Fortress 2 to "prove it", would that genuinely make his jewish argument valid? If some muslim insisted his demonic Baphomet (aka Mohammed)-worshipping people are victims and Christians are oppressors and then facerolled your ass in Street Fighter V using unfair unreactable 50-50 mixups would that make his idiocy remotely tolerable by any civilized society that's worth being called rational? If some small-time gaming league was paid by leftists to "beat bullies" and kill+teabag gamers unafraid to talk about the dancing israelis, would that actually matter to the validity of any argument?
Surely you can't actually believe that. Surely, you jest.
In a rational society that prioritizes facts and logic over physical force, duels are an outdated notion with few benefits and plenty of downsides, such as the ways they can be used to bypass the legal system and let the deadliest criminals escape justice. Duels work best in societies with limited or no police, an era of Murder Warrants and "Wanted: Dead Or Alive" posters. An era where the able-bodied common man is encouraged to use force for the good of his community and the protection of its people. Not an era where this is best left to highly-trained professionals, or a corrupt era where the use of force is exclusively a privilege only the rich and their enforcers can enjoy without dire legal consequences from the revenge-obsessed jewish """justice""" industry.
There is no risk of death involved in gaming. There is no risk of humiliation in the eyes of the mainstream public as most people don't really give a shit about the finer points of hardcore gaming or what separates a clever trick from a cheap trick. A hard-working man with a job can get muscles from physical labour, muscles that would be useless trying to beat some cheap bullshit in TF2 from some NEET with nothing stopping him from dedicating almost all waking hours alive to the game, but excellent when used to beat the stupid out of some antifa NPC shouting "fashist" until he's blue in the face.
A white man who takes care of his physical and mental health and prepares for """a potential zombie apocalypse""" has important things to do. Things more important than gaming for hours every single day. Things more important than getting dragged into some esports bullshit over arguments that can stand on their own merits.
We are right, in case you haven't noticed. White people are right to say they should have a place to live. White people are right to say their civilization should be protected from jewish corruption. White people are right to say they should create a place for their children and secure their future. We don't need to get into silly gaming feuds that could make a few gooming-obsessed retards respect us more or backfire and make them think we're a bunch of faggots. We're fucking white. We are truth. We are reason. We don't need this bullshit. Our arguments work because they make more sense than weaponised leftist confusion. Our information spreads despite the best efforts of the (((globalists))) because it is truthful.
I shouldn't need to beat some twat in a game of Pokemon before he'll give logic a chance and admit the smokestacks at Aushwitz aren't even connected to the main building or its so-called "gas chambers" with wooden doors.
Please don't claim that I'm being overly harsh or hostile to your idiotic idea. I've tried to cut out personal insults towards you where possible, and you might notice that I've never once insinuated that you're a jewish fedboy here to start retarded arguments and play the needlessly-attacked oppressed victim in need of rescue when rightfully criticized. You genuinely need to think of better ones if you want to help white people. Get your head out of your ass and try harder.
>>146950
One more thing...
Nobody has to dox (or "doxx") you to prove that you are a faggot. Your words and deeds (and incredibly abnormal level of moderator protection) prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
One more thing...
Nobody has to dox (or "doxx") you to prove that you are a faggot. Your words and deeds (and incredibly abnormal level of moderator protection) prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>>147274
Duels aren't really about being right or proving an argument. They're moreso about "honor", or whatever.
If it's a way for two gamers to settle a dispute for an argument that they already know they'll never agree on, it might not be that bad.
It would require both parties to be confident in their proficiency at the game, and would mean that they'd need to already be part of the same gaming community. If such an event can even be organized, the two parties must see eye to eye enough to be able to call it quits in the name of sportsmanship.
Duels aren't really about being right or proving an argument. They're moreso about "honor", or whatever.
If it's a way for two gamers to settle a dispute for an argument that they already know they'll never agree on, it might not be that bad.
It would require both parties to be confident in their proficiency at the game, and would mean that they'd need to already be part of the same gaming community. If such an event can even be organized, the two parties must see eye to eye enough to be able to call it quits in the name of sportsmanship.
>>147275
>and incredibly abnormal level of moderator protection
As I recall, I didn't ask the mods to do jack, and that criticism of my person is null, along with all the other times I have been called a faggot by you. But since this situation has gotten way out of control since the start, my feelings indeed do matter to me, I'm spent, and I want to be a pain in nobody's ass, I'm just going to bail for as long of a while as I'm able and let you gents handle it. Cheers.
>and incredibly abnormal level of moderator protection
As I recall, I didn't ask the mods to do jack, and that criticism of my person is null, along with all the other times I have been called a faggot by you. But since this situation has gotten way out of control since the start, my feelings indeed do matter to me, I'm spent, and I want to be a pain in nobody's ass, I'm just going to bail for as long of a while as I'm able and let you gents handle it. Cheers.
>>148029
I mean, it could be worth a shot. Would also be an experiement to test the practicality of an internet duel.
It would need:
>1. A semi-neutral game (easy game, or game both players are confident at their skills in)
>2. An easy medium that players could game on
>3. An audience to witness
>4. Terms for a short match
I mean, it could be worth a shot. Would also be an experiement to test the practicality of an internet duel.
It would need:
>1. A semi-neutral game (easy game, or game both players are confident at their skills in)
>2. An easy medium that players could game on
>3. An audience to witness
>4. Terms for a short match
>>148030
I'd be willing to do some kind of friendly to begin with, but I nuked my Windows install a month or two ago and I hadn't been playing any games at all pretty much for half a year leading up to then, so not only would I need to find a game that worked well enough on my Linux distro, I would also want a bit of practice to remove whatever rusted edges might be there, and in case it wasn't already obvious I possess an almost extreme paranoia when it comes to OPSEC so that would need to be sated as well.
All that being said, there would seem to be significant technical hurdles to be overcome, but it's not like I've got much better to do. That would provide an incentive to learn more about cybersecurity, the way I see it, whether the idea takes off or not.
I'd be willing to do some kind of friendly to begin with, but I nuked my Windows install a month or two ago and I hadn't been playing any games at all pretty much for half a year leading up to then, so not only would I need to find a game that worked well enough on my Linux distro, I would also want a bit of practice to remove whatever rusted edges might be there, and in case it wasn't already obvious I possess an almost extreme paranoia when it comes to OPSEC so that would need to be sated as well.
All that being said, there would seem to be significant technical hurdles to be overcome, but it's not like I've got much better to do. That would provide an incentive to learn more about cybersecurity, the way I see it, whether the idea takes off or not.
>>148030
>>148031
I can research a couple open source games in the meantime. In fact there's likely a few what would formerly be flash games that could be played in a browser like Tanks from back in the day, but I was thinking more along the lines of swordfighting or FPS; the bar for competency and computing power to play it likely needing to be low at least for now. The issue then becoming how to host a stream securely; movie night is done on joshwhotv, and although that's something I'd want to be incredibly careful about, since it would just be too easy to show a screenshot of a window I didn't mean to keep open, I do think there would be decent workarounds to it like using a fresh install just for that purpose either on bare metal or in a VM. To use a third party for hosting the game would be something that needed to be ironed out as well.
>>148031
I can research a couple open source games in the meantime. In fact there's likely a few what would formerly be flash games that could be played in a browser like Tanks from back in the day, but I was thinking more along the lines of swordfighting or FPS; the bar for competency and computing power to play it likely needing to be low at least for now. The issue then becoming how to host a stream securely; movie night is done on joshwhotv, and although that's something I'd want to be incredibly careful about, since it would just be too easy to show a screenshot of a window I didn't mean to keep open, I do think there would be decent workarounds to it like using a fresh install just for that purpose either on bare metal or in a VM. To use a third party for hosting the game would be something that needed to be ironed out as well.
>>147289
If someone argued "jews did nothing wrong" and then kicked my ass in tekken to "prove it" what would that actually prove? That I have things to do besides playing Tekken? That someone who plays Tekken more than me should have been the one to represent the truth and the interests of all whites in a videogame button pressing contest?
Physical duels with the risk of death and injury have their place in settling personal disputes and giving faggots a reason not to slander you or fuck with you. But the truth isn't something force can settle.
I don't want to come across as overly hostile but I legitimately don't understand why anyone could think this is a good idea. I don't understand why anyone would keep insisting on this duel. If we win a duel with some leftist cunt we win nothing because leftists never admit defeat unless they think it will save their lives. If we get beaten in a video game they laugh at us and feel like they've achieved some kind of legitimate and worthwhile victory over us. It makes no sense for us to temporarily put objective truth to one side and stake our pride on an arbitrary competition when we have nothing to gain.
"totally owning teh libtards" might be fun but it is only politically valuable when we can show our victories to people who haven't joined us and get them on our side.
The "He will not divide us" videos were valuable because it exposed Shia LeFag and his lefty followers as insane mindless NPCs that are hilarious to fuck with. It was valuable because leftists want to look like "the good rebels against hayte and waycism" and untouchable intimidating all-powerful rulers who enforce their party's authoritarian laws on you.
[Read more] If someone argued "jews did nothing wrong" and then kicked my ass in tekken to "prove it" what would that actually prove? That I have things to do besides playing Tekken? That someone who plays Tekken more than me should have been the one to represent the truth and the interests of all whites in a videogame button pressing contest?
Physical duels with the risk of death and injury have their place in settling personal disputes and giving faggots a reason not to slander you or fuck with you. But the truth isn't something force can settle.
I don't want to come across as overly hostile but I legitimately don't understand why anyone could think this is a good idea. I don't understand why anyone would keep insisting on this duel. If we win a duel with some leftist cunt we win nothing because leftists never admit defeat unless they think it will save their lives. If we get beaten in a video game they laugh at us and feel like they've achieved some kind of legitimate and worthwhile victory over us. It makes no sense for us to temporarily put objective truth to one side and stake our pride on an arbitrary competition when we have nothing to gain.
"totally owning teh libtards" might be fun but it is only politically valuable when we can show our victories to people who haven't joined us and get them on our side.
The "He will not divide us" videos were valuable because it exposed Shia LeFag and his lefty followers as insane mindless NPCs that are hilarious to fuck with. It was valuable because leftists want to look like "the good rebels against hayte and waycism" and untouchable intimidating all-powerful rulers who enforce their party's authoritarian laws on you.
>>148033
These are fair points to bring up, and truth be told I didn't come here necessarily to pitch an idea; the reason for posting the OP was more along the lines of hashing out general questions like these, but as one can see the thread's gotten massively derailed before, and that's something that a topic like this was broached in the effort of hoping to avoid.
>If someone argued "jews did nothing wrong" and then kicked my ass in tekken to "prove it" what would that actually prove?
It would prove that both parties had honor and were willing to stand up for their name, even though they risked humiliation, or even in their case injury or death to stand by it, not necessarily whatever either parties thought of a given situation. In fact a lot of the slander that triggered challenges of a duel, at least in the South during the 19th century (not necessarily the Wild West), was unsubstantial towards whether or not it was fair game to fight over; and in many cases this was resolved before the duel was carried out by kin or close friends of the challengers that talked about it and tried to sate both persons' sense of dignity; and even when it came to an actual fight, after weeks or months of negotiation, the vast majority of the time it did not end in fatality, only about a fifth of the time did it do that, the vast majority of other times shots were purposely either fired into the air or at an appendage.
The South, furthermore, wouldn't have put up a fight in the Civil War unless there was a code of honor that they strictly had adhered to during that time; Bobby Lee, among the shrewdest of generals of Dixie, has been famously quoted to have believed more in the ideals of the North, but that he was bound by a sense of honor to fight for the South. When Hitler signed a treaty to settle his disputes with France's military, he had been congratulated as restoring the honor of Germany in the same train car as the first world war armistice in Compiègne.
So I could've been clearer in the OP. This isn't supposed to be attempting to solve problems of determining who's right or who's wrong, this is more about avoiding unnecessary tongue-lashings and for those on the board to act civil in discussion, because that tends to be how ideas get hashed out, rather than calling someone else a bad name. Imagine if your CPU queried RAM and got called a faggot or worse every once in a while; at best the computer's capability of getting something done would be tarnished, and that's a more generous example, because computers are cold and humans warm or even hotheaded. Likewise Germany would never have pulled itself out of the Weimar era and became one of the world's most respected fighting forces had it not cared about a sense of honor and everyone was busy slandering their Aryan neighbors all the time.
4chan's unspoken rules of days past, and those written on this website as well have exhibited an influence by a little book called Fight Club, where men that needed to blow off steam would go into the basement of a rundown bar and fight it out once in a while, and that wasn't due to any particular slight or insult. Those rules being "the first and second rules of fight club are not to talk about fight club," and that whole book was written based on a brotherly code of honor that has thus been alluded to. An attempt is being made to tap into a more primal instinct here, as in the West there's a crisis of honor as we speak, and this seemed like it could be a good place to start remedying that. I'm certainly okay with being wrong, but I am most certainly not okay with being insulted.
But at this point, I think it would be more valuable to just go the empirical route, and see if it works out. At worst we've wasted a couple minutes or hours trying something new, and at best if someone's got a new idea that they're trying to pitch or get feedback on they don't get called a faggot over and over again as a crutch in case their challengers don't have a substantial argument. It's rooted in self-depracating irony; fun is something that must most certainly be had every once in a while, but to talk about serious topics and have "faggot" in the thread a thousand times over is simply unbecoming at best. I am one to believe that we deserve better; whether this is the way to achieve those ends or not matters little.
[Read more] These are fair points to bring up, and truth be told I didn't come here necessarily to pitch an idea; the reason for posting the OP was more along the lines of hashing out general questions like these, but as one can see the thread's gotten massively derailed before, and that's something that a topic like this was broached in the effort of hoping to avoid.
>If someone argued "jews did nothing wrong" and then kicked my ass in tekken to "prove it" what would that actually prove?
It would prove that both parties had honor and were willing to stand up for their name, even though they risked humiliation, or even in their case injury or death to stand by it, not necessarily whatever either parties thought of a given situation. In fact a lot of the slander that triggered challenges of a duel, at least in the South during the 19th century (not necessarily the Wild West), was unsubstantial towards whether or not it was fair game to fight over; and in many cases this was resolved before the duel was carried out by kin or close friends of the challengers that talked about it and tried to sate both persons' sense of dignity; and even when it came to an actual fight, after weeks or months of negotiation, the vast majority of the time it did not end in fatality, only about a fifth of the time did it do that, the vast majority of other times shots were purposely either fired into the air or at an appendage.
The South, furthermore, wouldn't have put up a fight in the Civil War unless there was a code of honor that they strictly had adhered to during that time; Bobby Lee, among the shrewdest of generals of Dixie, has been famously quoted to have believed more in the ideals of the North, but that he was bound by a sense of honor to fight for the South. When Hitler signed a treaty to settle his disputes with France's military, he had been congratulated as restoring the honor of Germany in the same train car as the first world war armistice in Compiègne.
So I could've been clearer in the OP. This isn't supposed to be attempting to solve problems of determining who's right or who's wrong, this is more about avoiding unnecessary tongue-lashings and for those on the board to act civil in discussion, because that tends to be how ideas get hashed out, rather than calling someone else a bad name. Imagine if your CPU queried RAM and got called a faggot or worse every once in a while; at best the computer's capability of getting something done would be tarnished, and that's a more generous example, because computers are cold and humans warm or even hotheaded. Likewise Germany would never have pulled itself out of the Weimar era and became one of the world's most respected fighting forces had it not cared about a sense of honor and everyone was busy slandering their Aryan neighbors all the time.
4chan's unspoken rules of days past, and those written on this website as well have exhibited an influence by a little book called Fight Club, where men that needed to blow off steam would go into the basement of a rundown bar and fight it out once in a while, and that wasn't due to any particular slight or insult. Those rules being "the first and second rules of fight club are not to talk about fight club," and that whole book was written based on a brotherly code of honor that has thus been alluded to. An attempt is being made to tap into a more primal instinct here, as in the West there's a crisis of honor as we speak, and this seemed like it could be a good place to start remedying that. I'm certainly okay with being wrong, but I am most certainly not okay with being insulted.
But at this point, I think it would be more valuable to just go the empirical route, and see if it works out. At worst we've wasted a couple minutes or hours trying something new, and at best if someone's got a new idea that they're trying to pitch or get feedback on they don't get called a faggot over and over again as a crutch in case their challengers don't have a substantial argument. It's rooted in self-depracating irony; fun is something that must most certainly be had every once in a while, but to talk about serious topics and have "faggot" in the thread a thousand times over is simply unbecoming at best. I am one to believe that we deserve better; whether this is the way to achieve those ends or not matters little.
>>148034
>or even in their case injury or death to stand by it
>their
Southerners, jousting knights, et cetera.
>or even in their case injury or death to stand by it
>their
Southerners, jousting knights, et cetera.
1624318910.png (11.1 KB, 128x128, 0E7D9C78E6EAAC44AD9F5CEB8D9B6688-11350.png)
>>148034
Ah! A test of mettle and honor is quite different. The ideas aren't at stake it's the core personality and ego that is to be determined the trust worthiness.
So for the traditional games is Chess, Go, or other board games. Or even checkers. Letters passing back and forth the decisions. But the personality and honour may or may not be tested.
In extreme danger work, absolutely brutal ribbing.
Hmmmm.
Going to be don't sweat it. Single player games, or reasonable challenges will work too, because the point isn't only to win. It's to form a more cohesive community, and bonds of mutual respect.
But that's not a satisfying answer, me saying it'll happen as it happens, how about a meme sling off?
Three pics or videos or audio then a poner that pulls those three things together. For each person.
Then what'll happen using 5 upload files when those two meet.
[Read more] Ah! A test of mettle and honor is quite different. The ideas aren't at stake it's the core personality and ego that is to be determined the trust worthiness.
So for the traditional games is Chess, Go, or other board games. Or even checkers. Letters passing back and forth the decisions. But the personality and honour may or may not be tested.
In extreme danger work, absolutely brutal ribbing.
Hmmmm.
Going to be don't sweat it. Single player games, or reasonable challenges will work too, because the point isn't only to win. It's to form a more cohesive community, and bonds of mutual respect.
But that's not a satisfying answer, me saying it'll happen as it happens, how about a meme sling off?
Three pics or videos or audio then a poner that pulls those three things together. For each person.
Then what'll happen using 5 upload files when those two meet.
>>148038
What does it say when someone accepts a duel and then intentionally throws the fight in such an obvious half-assed manner that to accept this victory as legitimate would make you look daft?
What does it say when someone accepts a duel and then intentionally throws the fight in such an obvious half-assed manner that to accept this victory as legitimate would make you look daft?
>>148036
Op-Sec.
Operational Security.
Giving jews a back door into your computer by using windows? Bad for security.
Op-Sec.
Operational Security.
Giving jews a back door into your computer by using windows? Bad for security.
>>148039
Tbh, I think that would be a moot point. Both parties would have wasted their time, and the match-thrower would have effectively lost in proving that he's the asshole.
Tbh, I think that would be a moot point. Both parties would have wasted their time, and the match-thrower would have effectively lost in proving that he's the asshole.
>>148038
I'm not so certain I could imagine what that would look like. Though I wouldn't be opposed to playing the odd game of chess or co-operative type game. Projects that pull the community together, like as in Ponies: The Continuation have been shown to be valuable exercises.
>>148039
This >>148041.
I'm not so certain I could imagine what that would look like. Though I wouldn't be opposed to playing the odd game of chess or co-operative type game. Projects that pull the community together, like as in Ponies: The Continuation have been shown to be valuable exercises.
>>148039
This >>148041.
>>148074
I disagree. What you propose would discourage people from participating in the first place.
The loss of the "duel" should mean little more than embarrassment on part of the losing party: those stakes are plenty high for an internet argument.
I disagree. What you propose would discourage people from participating in the first place.
The loss of the "duel" should mean little more than embarrassment on part of the losing party: those stakes are plenty high for an internet argument.
>>148075
Fair enough, although I think that's something that could be left to the challengers in question; regardless the way I see it is that it's not something we need to decide in the here and now. Soon as I rope together a way to get this thing started the details could end up falling into place on their own.
Fair enough, although I think that's something that could be left to the challengers in question; regardless the way I see it is that it's not something we need to decide in the here and now. Soon as I rope together a way to get this thing started the details could end up falling into place on their own.
Quick update, as some might've been able to guess, a VM is not going to work, there's just no comparison for something that would require any reaction times at all even playing a simple flash game, and as of right now a KVM is off the table. So, I'll check back in soon as I have a fresh Linux install working on bare metal. Then, all that would need to happen is I figure out how to host on joshwhotv with any and all necessary security measures in place, and then decide on a game that could be played 1v1 for a friendly test run or two. Right now I'm thinking the simpler the better, but we could get something more interesting going later on.
>>148034
>I didn't come here necessarily to pitch an idea
Then what DID you come here for?
>thread derailed
>oh no, my idea is getting btfo, its DERAILMENT
Leaving aside the obvious and dubious concept
OP is a faggot, and anyone who wishes to challenge that assertion has to test the idea with a thumb war or forever leave the site.
See how retarded that sounds?
>I didn't come here necessarily to pitch an idea
Then what DID you come here for?
>thread derailed
>oh no, my idea is getting btfo, its DERAILMENT
Leaving aside the obvious and dubious concept
OP is a faggot, and anyone who wishes to challenge that assertion has to test the idea with a thumb war or forever leave the site.
See how retarded that sounds?
>>148143
OP does seem like a faggot. It's accepting the physical risk of real physical injury, pain, even death for the sake of your beliefs that make accepting the challenge of a duel into an act of manliness. Anyone can lose some tic-tac-toe game and then suffer some arbitrary punishment when the stakes are low but in politics the stakes are life and death. This isn't a WWE esports board where "loser gets banned for a week" is used to spice up a match like old wrestling "loser leaves town" matches. The turth isn't up to interpretation and the outcome of NBA 2k69 online matches won't affect it. Maybe this would be a fun way to resolve unimportant and childish personal disputes on gaming sites, but to suggest settling meaningful mature arguments with a game of fucking Yugioh is asinine. If the leftists take over countries they kill people. If the leftists take over discussion boards they turn them into conquered territory where discussions are controlled and leftism is mandatory. If the leftists convince normies they are the majority, normies will go along with the falsehood in the name of conformity. I love the 4chan cup as much as the next real man but do you think if our team fought some commie imageboard's team and won they'd actually honour any agreement they made?
>>148149
That's dumb. The stakes for a match should be proportional to the issue at hand, and internet disagreements aren't serious at all.
That's dumb. The stakes for a match should be proportional to the issue at hand, and internet disagreements aren't serious at all.
If I challenged someone to a match in a game they didn't own and had never played, what happens then?
>>148147
Why would getting baited into gaming battles instead of rational arguments be a step in the right direction?
Why would getting baited into gaming battles instead of rational arguments be a step in the right direction?
>>148150
>internet disagreements aren't serious at all
You might be right there, but I'd like to make a distinction between a disagreement and something that just devolves into petty namecalling, which at this point I must regret to say has sapped a lot of strength not to engage in myself. If you'll look at the timestamps of this thread I left not only this thread but the website as a whole for about a month on my own due to not wanting to be around a certain someone. I, for one, would consider that serious business, as I can be a pretty active user; and the way I see it, if an internet fight isn't taken seriously at all in the first place, neither should be a ban. Perhaps if you want to look at it this way, the predetermined punishment as outlined in the agreed-upon terms would only be as serious as the offense someone took. Tit for tat.
>>148151
I was starting to think along the same lines, though that's something that I think should be left up to the challengers, and after the fight, someone could choose either not to enforce it, or do so less than the agreed upon terms if they wanted as a show of mercy. Much like firing into the air in the South of the 19th century.
>>148152
>It wouldn't be hard to just pretend to leave, and continue to post anonymously.
This is true, and something I alluded to in >>148074 when I mentioned:
>This is the type of thing that really only works if a lot of people are on board with it, and people are willing to exhibit a sense of shame.
For example, if someone loses a duel and comes back before their time is up, that would be a dishonorable thing to do, as in someone that shows a bit of shame wouldn't do such a thing, and if they were found out, a technique to try could be that the user is called out and banned for a longer time. One might be surprised at how hard it is to keep the "facts" straight, should they begin to lie under questioning.
Of course, it wouldn't hurt at least by ceremony, should the esteemed moderators think it a decent idea and strike an IP on the banlist.
The world's really our oyster here, folks. The way I see it, we can do this, or not, any way the community likes.
Meanwhile I've installed another OS on my computer, and the next step is going to be to do a bit of groundwork when it comes to security settings, and then all that would have to happen is I find a game to play. But I'm beat for now so I'm going to have to do that another time.
And if anyone doesn't think this kind of thing could be a big deal, may I invite you to look at how much money and ceremony has gone into boxing matches over the past century, and in this one how video games are picking up steam in esports leagues. When there's competition and consequences involved, things can start to become a big deal pretty quick. Can I at least say it's worth a shot, if I'm the one that lays all the groundwork for it?
[Read more] >internet disagreements aren't serious at all
You might be right there, but I'd like to make a distinction between a disagreement and something that just devolves into petty namecalling, which at this point I must regret to say has sapped a lot of strength not to engage in myself. If you'll look at the timestamps of this thread I left not only this thread but the website as a whole for about a month on my own due to not wanting to be around a certain someone. I, for one, would consider that serious business, as I can be a pretty active user; and the way I see it, if an internet fight isn't taken seriously at all in the first place, neither should be a ban. Perhaps if you want to look at it this way, the predetermined punishment as outlined in the agreed-upon terms would only be as serious as the offense someone took. Tit for tat.
>>148151
I was starting to think along the same lines, though that's something that I think should be left up to the challengers, and after the fight, someone could choose either not to enforce it, or do so less than the agreed upon terms if they wanted as a show of mercy. Much like firing into the air in the South of the 19th century.
>>148152
>It wouldn't be hard to just pretend to leave, and continue to post anonymously.
This is true, and something I alluded to in >>148074 when I mentioned:
>This is the type of thing that really only works if a lot of people are on board with it, and people are willing to exhibit a sense of shame.
For example, if someone loses a duel and comes back before their time is up, that would be a dishonorable thing to do, as in someone that shows a bit of shame wouldn't do such a thing, and if they were found out, a technique to try could be that the user is called out and banned for a longer time. One might be surprised at how hard it is to keep the "facts" straight, should they begin to lie under questioning.
Of course, it wouldn't hurt at least by ceremony, should the esteemed moderators think it a decent idea and strike an IP on the banlist.
The world's really our oyster here, folks. The way I see it, we can do this, or not, any way the community likes.
Meanwhile I've installed another OS on my computer, and the next step is going to be to do a bit of groundwork when it comes to security settings, and then all that would have to happen is I find a game to play. But I'm beat for now so I'm going to have to do that another time.
And if anyone doesn't think this kind of thing could be a big deal, may I invite you to look at how much money and ceremony has gone into boxing matches over the past century, and in this one how video games are picking up steam in esports leagues. When there's competition and consequences involved, things can start to become a big deal pretty quick. Can I at least say it's worth a shot, if I'm the one that lays all the groundwork for it?
>>148157
>>148158
Look mate, no offense but I feel like I've already said my piece on these questions here, and honestly we're all in the process of figuring this out in case I haven't. In case honor is not something that's easily understood here, I'd compare it to the theory of General Relativity, which is said to be hard to understand for those that don't know, and hard to explain for those that do. Read up on Robert E. Lee if you would, or perhaps Admiral Horatio Nelson would be a bit closer to home for you, whom on a cursory glance had a reputation for valor and duty, those two concepts being close in connection to it.
>>148158
Look mate, no offense but I feel like I've already said my piece on these questions here, and honestly we're all in the process of figuring this out in case I haven't. In case honor is not something that's easily understood here, I'd compare it to the theory of General Relativity, which is said to be hard to understand for those that don't know, and hard to explain for those that do. Read up on Robert E. Lee if you would, or perhaps Admiral Horatio Nelson would be a bit closer to home for you, whom on a cursory glance had a reputation for valor and duty, those two concepts being close in connection to it.
>>148152
Yea That Could Be a problem. i dont really have a solution for this problem.
>>148159
Adorable. AJ Pic.
>No Neo Confederate GF
Why live?
>I was starting to think along the same lines, though that's something that I think should be left up to the challengers, and after the fight, someone could choose either not to enforce it, or do so less than the agreed upon terms if they wanted as a show of mercy. Much like firing into the air in the South of the 19th century.
I Could not agree more.
>>148158
Because Honor is more important than Debate.
[Read more] Yea That Could Be a problem. i dont really have a solution for this problem.
>>148159
Adorable. AJ Pic.
>No Neo Confederate GF
Why live?
>I was starting to think along the same lines, though that's something that I think should be left up to the challengers, and after the fight, someone could choose either not to enforce it, or do so less than the agreed upon terms if they wanted as a show of mercy. Much like firing into the air in the South of the 19th century.
I Could not agree more.
>>148158
Because Honor is more important than Debate.
>>148159
>I left the site cuz someone rustled my jimmies
>but you guys should totally want me around
>>148160
When you say 'honor', are you referring to when you started accusing me of your paranoid delusions because I trashed your idea?
Look, if you wanna make some sort of /mlpol/ fighting/gaming league, knock yourself out. Then, if you want to challenge assholes to a match, have at it. But dont expect whatever you do to have any legitimacy outside of any personally and individually agreed (read: a gentleman's contract) scope or contest. Competition is fine, and I admit such a situation could help individuals to settle their differences, but that is not something that should have any weight in an argument, and the idea that it 'should' ought to raise alarm bells.
>I left the site cuz someone rustled my jimmies
>but you guys should totally want me around
>>148160
When you say 'honor', are you referring to when you started accusing me of your paranoid delusions because I trashed your idea?
Look, if you wanna make some sort of /mlpol/ fighting/gaming league, knock yourself out. Then, if you want to challenge assholes to a match, have at it. But dont expect whatever you do to have any legitimacy outside of any personally and individually agreed (read: a gentleman's contract) scope or contest. Competition is fine, and I admit such a situation could help individuals to settle their differences, but that is not something that should have any weight in an argument, and the idea that it 'should' ought to raise alarm bells.
>>148160
Insulting my honour for not getting baited into pointless fights makes no sense. You're trying to start an unnecessary fight with everyone who understands why the unnecessary fights you're offering are pointless.
Insulting my honour for not getting baited into pointless fights makes no sense. You're trying to start an unnecessary fight with everyone who understands why the unnecessary fights you're offering are pointless.
>>148162
There is no objective legitimacy in internet arguments. Just assholes who don't know when to shut up.
There is no objective legitimacy in internet arguments. Just assholes who don't know when to shut up.
>>148163
>Insulting my honour
It's an internet argument. Your honor is going to be insulted either way.
>Insulting my honour
It's an internet argument. Your honor is going to be insulted either way.
>>148162
>When you say 'honor', are you referring to when you started accusing me of your paranoid delusions because I trashed your idea?
Hell no, I'm referring to when you barged into the thread to say against my character among other things, and I quote, "get fucked."
>Look, if you wanna make some sort of /mlpol/ fighting/gaming league, knock yourself out. Then, if you want to challenge assholes to a match, have at it. But dont expect whatever you do to have any legitimacy outside of any personally and individually agreed (read: a gentleman's contract) scope or contest. Competition is fine, and I admit such a situation could help individuals to settle their differences, but that is not something that should have any weight in an argument, and the idea that it 'should' ought to raise alarm bells.
Yeah that's a fair assessment to espouse. Just don't tell me to get fucked or generally act disrespectful towards me or we're going to have a problem. Everyone's got a line pal, and I've been gracious enough thus far to look past both the times you've crossed mine.
>When you say 'honor', are you referring to when you started accusing me of your paranoid delusions because I trashed your idea?
Hell no, I'm referring to when you barged into the thread to say against my character among other things, and I quote, "get fucked."
>Look, if you wanna make some sort of /mlpol/ fighting/gaming league, knock yourself out. Then, if you want to challenge assholes to a match, have at it. But dont expect whatever you do to have any legitimacy outside of any personally and individually agreed (read: a gentleman's contract) scope or contest. Competition is fine, and I admit such a situation could help individuals to settle their differences, but that is not something that should have any weight in an argument, and the idea that it 'should' ought to raise alarm bells.
Yeah that's a fair assessment to espouse. Just don't tell me to get fucked or generally act disrespectful towards me or we're going to have a problem. Everyone's got a line pal, and I've been gracious enough thus far to look past both the times you've crossed mine.
>>148164
Do you think this will go in circles forever?
>"come on guys, playing chess with commies will totally prove we're smarter than them and if we beat them they'll totally honour any agreements they made! if they don't we can laugh at them for being dishonourable- what do you mean we already knew this?"
Do you think this will go in circles forever?
>"come on guys, playing chess with commies will totally prove we're smarter than them and if we beat them they'll totally honour any agreements they made! if they don't we can laugh at them for being dishonourable- what do you mean we already knew this?"
...
Fucking hell. There was a time when the cesspool site cough 4cuck cough was considered a hurtbox. Usually shanked with truth, and at times empty words.
I mean way wayyyy more brutal. Just ripping people to shreds and the only thing keeping it from going overboard was anonymity and the quantity of posts speeding by.
So to be frank that's not going to work here. Even if there was a bloodbath thread/board jimmies are going to be rustled. This doesn't give something that bonds people together with, heck the only thing that the hurtbox gave to bond over with was painful truth.
That's why blood feuds were a thing as people kept going back and forth getting revenge for sullying the family honor.
Destroying good people and their lineage.
Okay, but the inverse is also true. Not going into full retaliation to the strike is where we are at now. As in many traditions and people have been chipped away and washed out by fuckers. It brings about the snobbery and backstabbing.
So fine the two far ends have their problems, but surely something can be done about people calling each other faggots or fuckwads right?
Well technically yes, use more creative insults. But to be fair the real issue is that spillover into other threads is the issue along with it being seemingly unending.
The solution is just as simple rule 1 rule 2 thread. You have shit to unload do it there. What happens in rule 1 rule 2 threads says in rule 1 rule 2 thread.
Okay, but some threads have a... visitor of the monetary sort with an agenda, or someone from a hugbox who stumbled here as stated hoers pussy and truth works together 99.99% of the time.
Okay but that didn't really solve the issue because it's about ego and the feelings. On the other hand seeing the same dude say the same things can be aggrovating.
But honestly being able to say fuck off to what is essentially psychological w... fisty cuffs of big scale is a handy skill to refine, and then turn that barb around.
[Read more] Fucking hell. There was a time when the cesspool site cough 4cuck cough was considered a hurtbox. Usually shanked with truth, and at times empty words.
I mean way wayyyy more brutal. Just ripping people to shreds and the only thing keeping it from going overboard was anonymity and the quantity of posts speeding by.
So to be frank that's not going to work here. Even if there was a bloodbath thread/board jimmies are going to be rustled. This doesn't give something that bonds people together with, heck the only thing that the hurtbox gave to bond over with was painful truth.
That's why blood feuds were a thing as people kept going back and forth getting revenge for sullying the family honor.
Destroying good people and their lineage.
Okay, but the inverse is also true. Not going into full retaliation to the strike is where we are at now. As in many traditions and people have been chipped away and washed out by fuckers. It brings about the snobbery and backstabbing.
So fine the two far ends have their problems, but surely something can be done about people calling each other faggots or fuckwads right?
Well technically yes, use more creative insults. But to be fair the real issue is that spillover into other threads is the issue along with it being seemingly unending.
The solution is just as simple rule 1 rule 2 thread. You have shit to unload do it there. What happens in rule 1 rule 2 threads says in rule 1 rule 2 thread.
Okay, but some threads have a... visitor of the monetary sort with an agenda, or someone from a hugbox who stumbled here as stated hoers pussy and truth works together 99.99% of the time.
Okay but that didn't really solve the issue because it's about ego and the feelings. On the other hand seeing the same dude say the same things can be aggrovating.
But honestly being able to say fuck off to what is essentially psychological w... fisty cuffs of big scale is a handy skill to refine, and then turn that barb around.
>>148173
Thank you
>>148172
You, get fucked 2x. What are we, guidance counselors worrying about offending sensibilities? We gotta worry about feelings and impressions and shit? Jesus christ, anon used to have some balls. I'm not besmirching frenship, but some frens use tough love; it's a thing, quit being a faggot.
Thank you
>>148172
You, get fucked 2x. What are we, guidance counselors worrying about offending sensibilities? We gotta worry about feelings and impressions and shit? Jesus christ, anon used to have some balls. I'm not besmirching frenship, but some frens use tough love; it's a thing, quit being a faggot.
>>148173
>Pic 4
"I Have Heard of People converting from a lie to the truth,But not once have i heard of someone converting from the truth to a lie." - Commander George Lincoln Rockwell(R.I.P)
>Pic 4
"I Have Heard of People converting from a lie to the truth,But not once have i heard of someone converting from the truth to a lie." - Commander George Lincoln Rockwell(R.I.P)
>>148175
It's not about offending sensibilities. You just suck at arguing if you think telling people to get fucked will somehow convince them.
So, without further ado, get fucked.
It's not about offending sensibilities. You just suck at arguing if you think telling people to get fucked will somehow convince them.
So, without further ado, get fucked.
1624496806_3.png (79.3 KB, 1000x500, 100C2366666902220C11EBA891A3EF8E-81229.png)
1624496806_4.png (207.9 KB, 713x541, 0EF0F2FDA4392494D3E98CD8FDA55035-212851.png)
1624496806_5.jpg (147.6 KB, 1300x900, 8798D98ED41ECD96D342E6D625B4AD6E-151159.jpg)
Okay so that's part A the /pol/
>>148173
This is now part B the /mlp/
The friendship part
>>147208
>>148038
So hear me out, cooperative games/activities.
Instead of shank of truth where is smarts quite a bit, it's the velvety glove of truth to softly strangle the best a person can be by their own will. Basically advanced trickery, but everyone is having a great time aka leadership and follower dynamics (they alternate an dhappen at the same time to lead both parties to better places).
There are six principles that govern it and I'll just reiterate them.
Laughter
Kindness
Generosity
Honesty
Loyalty
Friendship (magic which in part also means actively pursuing friendship)
So the reasoning stands that a spectator game (or one with even more players) could work to enhance bonds and sooth ego (usually by way of working well as a team does accomplish more, even if in different ways).
This six part system is also a quantifiable metric (to an extent).
With that said instead of a means to ridicule and demean, it ought to be used to build up and improve while also providing good sunshine examples.
All of the above have to be done in good faith, even if it's grumbling good faith. That means if someone gets suckered punched it's going to hurt more, and that's counterproductive.
A common goal that is to be entertaining, completing the objective, and strengthening friendship.
[Read more] >>148173
This is now part B the /mlp/
The friendship part
>>147208
>>148038
So hear me out, cooperative games/activities.
Instead of shank of truth where is smarts quite a bit, it's the velvety glove of truth to softly strangle the best a person can be by their own will. Basically advanced trickery, but everyone is having a great time aka leadership and follower dynamics (they alternate an dhappen at the same time to lead both parties to better places).
There are six principles that govern it and I'll just reiterate them.
Laughter
Kindness
Generosity
Honesty
Loyalty
Friendship (magic which in part also means actively pursuing friendship)
So the reasoning stands that a spectator game (or one with even more players) could work to enhance bonds and sooth ego (usually by way of working well as a team does accomplish more, even if in different ways).
This six part system is also a quantifiable metric (to an extent).
With that said instead of a means to ridicule and demean, it ought to be used to build up and improve while also providing good sunshine examples.
All of the above have to be done in good faith, even if it's grumbling good faith. That means if someone gets suckered punched it's going to hurt more, and that's counterproductive.
A common goal that is to be entertaining, completing the objective, and strengthening friendship.
>>148177
Gladly, though you'll pardon any seeming indecisiveness as I work the details out. In the meantime, you've yet admit address my salient point. Unless you wanna internet duel, that's where your attention should be focused.
Gladly, though you'll pardon any seeming indecisiveness as I work the details out. In the meantime, you've yet admit address my salient point. Unless you wanna internet duel, that's where your attention should be focused.
1624498814_1.png (45.8 KB, 389x213, F25F96570098ECF2BCD6D7E9BB6DF390-46891.png)
1624498814_2.png (376.8 KB, 600x675, C728F111F3AB7A597808015A5E550556-385865.png)
>>148173
>>148178
Okay so both parts are not actually mutually exclusive. They work extremely well together. In every aspect.
So what just keep blasting each other with truth designed to maximize harm and somehow friendship? Well.. I mean... it could work...
Nah, tactics, efficiency, effectiveness, and redundancy points that bring stuck in a corner with someone is a pretty neat place to find friends. Even by happenstance.
So the Friendship part has to be taken into account for all matters.
Even in truth speedy poking matches with gibblets spewing everywhere.
So why bring this up?
Common goals. Commies tend to put their asinine whatever crap as their one and onky thing they offer. They don't really have true true friends. They themselves don't exhibit friendship.
So we're not Globalist (((fuckwads))) yay us.
We're also quite different at times as well with disagreements and such.
Sometimes amazing things can only happen when certain people come into contact through different times and circumstances to have be done.
Being in a shitstorm flinging match and mutual jokes is a good time. So is watching people do something amazing!
Even when the activity is seemingly meaningless on the grand scale small acts bring us all closer to friendship and truth.
Because those small acts are what actually destroy evil from creeping in, and brings about good into the world and ourselves.
While learning /mlpol/ lessons along the way.
<The fuck are you saying zigger.
Punch people with friendship in heart and in hand only playing by truth, while also getting punched by friendship.
More exactly 1v1 and multiple people are both valid, just gotta be painfully true at all times with friendship.
<inb4 NiggerFaggotCocksuckerSpeedInsultChess with friends.
[Read more] >>148178
Okay so both parts are not actually mutually exclusive. They work extremely well together. In every aspect.
So what just keep blasting each other with truth designed to maximize harm and somehow friendship? Well.. I mean... it could work...
Nah, tactics, efficiency, effectiveness, and redundancy points that bring stuck in a corner with someone is a pretty neat place to find friends. Even by happenstance.
So the Friendship part has to be taken into account for all matters.
Even in truth speedy poking matches with gibblets spewing everywhere.
So why bring this up?
Common goals. Commies tend to put their asinine whatever crap as their one and onky thing they offer. They don't really have true true friends. They themselves don't exhibit friendship.
So we're not Globalist (((fuckwads))) yay us.
We're also quite different at times as well with disagreements and such.
Sometimes amazing things can only happen when certain people come into contact through different times and circumstances to have be done.
Being in a shitstorm flinging match and mutual jokes is a good time. So is watching people do something amazing!
Even when the activity is seemingly meaningless on the grand scale small acts bring us all closer to friendship and truth.
Because those small acts are what actually destroy evil from creeping in, and brings about good into the world and ourselves.
While learning /mlpol/ lessons along the way.
<The fuck are you saying zigger.
Punch people with friendship in heart and in hand only playing by truth, while also getting punched by friendship.
More exactly 1v1 and multiple people are both valid, just gotta be painfully true at all times with friendship.
<inb4 NiggerFaggotCocksuckerSpeedInsultChess with friends.
So when I call someone a fucktarded assblasted halfcocked nohooves lover. That's not actually completely true, just uhhh expressing the feelings inside in a neither constructive nor destructive manner, but the intent afterward and deep down under the rage and disbelief is friendship and truth... somewhere
That didn't mean the words are all that effective, but it does mean they could do with a tune up for maximum penetration.
Cause those words arn't that great.
So instead I'll say
>foight yah mate?
<yah cheeky breeky
>chess mate?
<nah mate, how about a round of the ol tounge slappy?
>noice yeah slick cunt. Inna remaned pic yeh?
<painted pic too yeh?
>Yeah!
<Yeah!
>Technically Mission Failed Successfully.
With the purpose being to disarm grudges as a side effect. Any means can take place as long as all parts are exhibited fully like a starker streaker throwing pork in halal factories.
[Read more] That didn't mean the words are all that effective, but it does mean they could do with a tune up for maximum penetration.
Cause those words arn't that great.
So instead I'll say
>foight yah mate?
<yah cheeky breeky
>chess mate?
<nah mate, how about a round of the ol tounge slappy?
>noice yeah slick cunt. Inna remaned pic yeh?
<painted pic too yeh?
>Yeah!
<Yeah!
>Technically Mission Failed Successfully.
With the purpose being to disarm grudges as a side effect. Any means can take place as long as all parts are exhibited fully like a starker streaker throwing pork in halal factories.
>>148183
Ngl, this is spot on. If a dude cant take a good ribbing, then hes not worth shit. But if he can, I might toast him.
OP could learn a thing about it.
Ngl, this is spot on. If a dude cant take a good ribbing, then hes not worth shit. But if he can, I might toast him.
OP could learn a thing about it.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-128] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
128 replies | 45 files | 34 UUIDs | Page 14
[Add to Thread Watcher]