Be Constructive when referencing PlanetSide 1

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

This is the exaggeration that I mentioned. I haven't seen this counter argument been used for a very long time. If someone does use it then you can simply state that, that is a fallacy.
What I have seen on numerous occasions are people who are perfectly able to make take an objective position when it comes to whether or not something from PS1 could work in PS2.

Read the OP. It was just done.

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Do you read your own site? You yourself have done this.

Have you ever posted in a thread not to argue or is that how you roll with all your responses?

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Have you ever posted in a thread not to argue or is that how you roll with all your responses?

Yes I have.

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

I haven't seen this counter argument been used for a very long time. If someone does use it then you can simply state that, that is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Hamma

Let's focus on that game and stop dwelling on the past because it's gone and as Smed said almost nobody is logged into it and it will remain that way even if it's added to the membership.

This thread is a fallacy.

[Hamma]

Taking my sentence out of context to suit your own argument. Like I said..

Read the entire thread and see what I mean rather than just reading bits and pieces to suit your own argument.

[Punker]

I can see both sides of the fence from here. And I agree that comparing PS1 to PS2 is like comparing apples to oranges.

But saying that, the majority of this community are still PS1 vets that are actively playing PS2.

Of course if a vet player spots a problem with the new game they are automatically going to offer a solution that worked from the old game, even though the two games are very different.

I don't think it's a matter of nostalgia, i think it's more of a fact that something worked, was trialed and successful and might possibly be the solution needed for the new game.

Telling your member base to forget all about the original game that bought them here, and to never compare the two could be pretty detrimental to the site.

I know the reason that the dev's visit here more than their own forums is because they value the opinions of PS1 vets (just look at Malorn's story and manifesto).

I think the comparisons are necessary, even though the games are very different, the only suggestions that are arising are those that worked for the original... I don't think i've read a thread where people are asking for BFR's to be introduced.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Read the OP. It was just done.

No, it wasn't. I most certainly didn't read it that way.

[Chaff]

.
....what's DAMN funny (to me)
....is that "the-Game-that-we-Shall-now-Not-Mention-by-Name" had a place called "Virtual Reality", but many vets of that game are lost in "non-Reality". I find this irony too damn funny.

I respect most of the opinions expressed on PSU. However, the "way" some people
choose to try to get their point accross makes wonder how many people here
are on Prozac, or need something like that. This is PS2 folks, deal with it.

I miss a few specific components from it's prior form. I will try not to use that title any more out of respect of this sites managements suggestions to leave the dead to RIP.
(good luck PSU mgmnt)
.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Taking my sentence out of context to suit your own argument. Like I said..

Read the entire thread and see what I mean rather than just reading bits and pieces to suit your own argument.

I'm sorry. Did you not type that, and how would the context of your original post make it NOT the case I describe?

Its great that Chip wrote a great post on how you SHOULD have presented your request. But you did not type that.

I agree with Chip, I disagree with you.

[Jennyboo]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

This thread is a fallacy.

Arguing for the sake of arguing is a fallacy

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

No, it wasn't. I most certainly didn't read it that way.

Not sure how you can mistake the flow.

There was a contentious thread about a topic, PS1 was brought up. Hamma tells everyone PS1 is dead because smed said it was, and we should just stop talking about it.

[Hamma]

You're more interested in an argument than actual solid debate and constructive ideas. If you want to contribute to this forum then stop being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Your ignorance on the topic is astounding, you choose to only read the pieces you want to read and not read the entire content of what I said based on later feedback from other members included into the mix.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Jennyboo

Arguing for the sake of arguing is a fallacy

I don't argue for the sake of argument.

I argue because people are wrong. Including myself.

Its fine, I will refrain from bring up PS1, no matter how relevant.

[CrazEpharmacist]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Not sure how you can mistake the flow.

There was a contentious thread about a topic, PS1 was brought up. Hamma tells everyone PS1 is dead because smed said it was, and we should just stop talking about it.

You're not really offering anything constructive here. Just arguing for the sake of arguing it seems.

[maradine]

Then I say something.

Stella? No? Man.

"This worked better in PS1 because it attenuated systemic shock in the bladbity blah blah" - useful discussion point.

"When are they going to make PS1 F2P? That's what the community really wants." - not useful discussion point.

I think that's the razor here.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by CrazEpharmacist

You're not really offering anything constructive here. Just arguing for the sake of arguing it seems.

What would be constructive?

I disagree with the original post, its premise and its intent.