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
78 replies and 31 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.
[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] [1-50] [51-100] [101-128] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
128 replies | 45 files | 34 UUIDs | Page 14
[Add to Thread Watcher]