Terminator Experiment Results

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

do not edit my game criteria

I did not say 1,500 points. I said 2,500 points. redo the task with the correct information. stop taking short cuts. do not make decisions that will benefit the outcome in your favor. you said high ranked players is what i avoid. So you must use a high ranked player score....2,500. not a score that will help your cry.

no you did not say 1500 and you didn't say 2500 either i was the one that started asking why don't you play captains or majors or high ranked players in general. so i looked at your 1v1 freestyle escalating chained games and found only 3 out of 250 to be against a player over 1500. i presented you with a clear percentage of games started by people over 1500 and how you fail to even come close to that percentage. also i asked you why you haven't joined any of alex's games.

please answer these 2 questions.

because he is 1 of 45 players on my ignore list...but you knew that already

[treefiddy]

right

we are not going to examine what i dont play. I will tell you what guys. this task is way beyond your capabilities of completing. I will complete the task for you.

Like I stated earlier when you were asking us to do it, this task won't prove anything. You completing it yourself does not change that fact.

As long as I control the criteria, I could prove any point I want.

[treefiddy]

because he is 1 of 45 players on my ignore list...but you knew that already

I believe you can join games of people on your own ignore list. They just cannot join yours.

[DiM]

do not edit my game criteria

I did not say 1,500 points. I said 2,500 points. redo the task with the correct information. stop taking short cuts. do not make decisions that will benefit the outcome in your favor. you said high ranked players is what i avoid. So you must use a high ranked player score....2,500. not a score that will help your cry.

no you did not say 1500 and you didn't say 2500 either i was the one that started asking why don't you play captains or majors or high ranked players in general. so i looked at your 1v1 freestyle escalating chained games and found only 3 out of 250 to be against a player over 1500. i presented you with a clear percentage of games started by people over 1500 and how you fail to even come close to that percentage. also i asked you why you haven't joined any of alex's games.

please answer these 2 questions.

because he is 1 of 45 players on my ignore list...but you knew that already

i had 2 questions you responded to the least important one. please respond to the other also.


and as for alex being on your ignore list, i don't see how that's a problem you can still see games made by people on your ignore list and you still can join them.

search for games made by me. even if i'm on your ignore list you can still see them and join them.

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

because he is 1 of 45 players on my ignore list...but you knew that already

I believe you can join games of people on your own ignore list. They just cannot join yours.

no shit

why would i want to play a jackass if I dont want the jackass to play me. the ignore list is designed to avoid the problem players.

lol

you guys ever go to school?

[DiM]

because he is 1 of 45 players on my ignore list...but you knew that already

I believe you can join games of people on your own ignore list. They just cannot join yours.

no shit

why would i want to play a jackass if I dont want the jackass to play me. the ignore list is designed to avoid the problem players.

lol

you guys ever go to school?

i'm on your ignore list. am i a problem player? i've been respectfull in chat played fast never skipped turns or deadbeated and congratulated you when you won the game. still i made it to ignore



also don't forget about this question:

we get an 18.7 % of games started by people over 1500 points. this means you should have at least 45 games versus people over 1500 and yet you have just 3 games.

so please explain me. how come you only have 3 games vs 1 guy over 1500 points? how did it happen that you missed hundreds of games versus people over 1500 points and did not join them?
how come that when you look at some of the starting moments for those high ranked games you find out you were only and started other games versus cooks? what does this prove? that you were online and searched for games. found games vs cooks and vs high rankers and decided to join the easy ones.

[rebelman]

As a cook myself I find it a little patronising that the great and the good on here are trying to look out for us against the big bad wolf - JR. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of some of his tactics but they are perfectly legal, ethics rarely come into the world of battle in the real world so is it any surprise they don't apply here by some at least.

As for the contention that cooks know nothing about strategy that is a ridiculous generalisation. I have won 12 of the 48 games I have played since joining here. I have got 10 positive feedbacks and no negatives and nearly all my victories were against higher ranked opposition. Obviously I'm still learning the ropes but you do not win 25% of your matches knowing nothing about strategy. I am certain as distinct from being unique, I would be representative of most cooks on here.

[DiM]

As a cook myself I find it a little patronising that the great and the good on here are trying to look out for us against the big bad wolf - JR. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of some of his tactics but they are perfectly legal, ethics rarely come into the world of battle in the real world so is it any surprise they don't apply here by some at least.

As for the contention that cooks know nothing about strategy that is a ridiculous generalisation. I have won 12 of the 48 games I have played since joining here. I have got 10 positive feedbacks and no negatives and nearly all my victories were against higher ranked opposition. Obviously I'm still learning the ropes but you do not win 25% of your matches knowing nothing about strategy. I am certain as distinct from being unique, I would be representative of most cooks on here.

you got this whole thing wrong. the experiment was to stop the abuse of the 1v1 terminator games and it was a success. it had nothing to do with jr being a bad wolf or cooks not knowing strategy.

that part was about jr abusing cooks and new recruits that have no idea how freestyle should be played.
that's what i meant when i said most cooks don't know strategy. notice i said most cooks not all cooks.

i don't want to sound like a negativistic ass but as for you winning 12 games out of 48 believe me that's such a low number it counts for nothing. wait until you reach some higher rank and amass more wins and then brag about your strategy skills. most of your wins are in 1v1 or 3 player games and you've beaten only one player that has over 1200 points.

[rebelman]

As a cook myself I find it a little patronising that the great and the good on here are trying to look out for us against the big bad wolf - JR. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of some of his tactics but they are perfectly legal, ethics rarely come into the world of battle in the real world so is it any surprise they don't apply here by some at least.

As for the contention that cooks know nothing about strategy that is a ridiculous generalisation. I have won 12 of the 48 games I have played since joining here. I have got 10 positive feedbacks and no negatives and nearly all my victories were against higher ranked opposition. Obviously I'm still learning the ropes but you do not win 25% of your matches knowing nothing about strategy. I am certain as distinct from being unique, I would be representative of most cooks on here.

you got this whole thing wrong. the experiment was to stop the abuse of the 1v1 terminator games and it was a success. it had nothing to do with jr being a bad wolf or cooks not knowing strategy.

that part was about jr abusing cooks and new recruits that have no idea how freestyle should be played.
that's what i meant when i said most cooks don't know strategy. notice i said most cooks not all cooks.

i don't want to sound like a negativistic ass but as for you winning 12 games out of 48 believe me that's such a low number it counts for nothing. wait until you reach some higher rank and amass more wins and then brag about your strategy skills. most of your wins are in 1v1 or 3 player games and you've beaten only one player that has over 1200 points.

-
I understand what the experiment was about and I applaud you and your colleagues for getting this anomaly corrected, however my post relates to the last couple of pages. As for bragging - it's not something I do and it would be fairly ironic for me a cook to be bragging about anything when I have played so few games, I just wanted to show that us cooks can fight our own corner. Hopefully I will not be a cook for long but while I am I'm going to defend my fellow cooks when I see some cook bashing going on even if it is in the form of "looking out for low ranked players".

[DiM]

johnny don't forget about this question:

we get an 18.7 % of games started by people over 1500 points. this means you should have at least 45 games versus people over 1500 and yet you have just 3 games.

so please explain me. how come you only have 3 games vs 1 guy over 1500 points? how did it happen that you missed hundreds of games versus people over 1500 points and did not join them?
how come that when you look at some of the starting moments for those high ranked games you find out you were only and started other games versus cooks? what does this prove? that you were online and searched for games. found games vs cooks and vs high rankers and decided to join the easy ones.

[cleveridea]

Any more experiments should be ran through Lack and done so with the proper personel which may or may not include your help.

JR, that suggestion has essentially already been suggested and rejected. DiM cannot accept the outcome where his way isn't immediately implemented. Any outcome where he perceives that he has been ignored breaks his spirit dramatically and he then pouts and pouts eventually hurting whoever he must along the way until he gets his way.

[DiM]

Any more experiments should be ran through Lack and done so with the proper personel which may or may not include your help.

JR, that suggestion has essentially already been suggested and rejected. DiM cannot accept the outcome where his way isn't immediately implemented. Any outcome where he perceives that he has been ignored breaks his spirit dramatically and he then pouts and pouts eventually hurting whoever he must along the way until he gets his way.

first of all what you 2 say it's impossible.

imagine me going to lack and telling him i want to make an experiment where i abuse the rules to demonstrate a flaw in the rules.
normally if there's a problem there's the suggestion forum. this problem has been brought up several times and nothing has been done that's why i felt the experiment was needed.

as for the people that have been mercilessly hurt as you say, believe me pms with apologies have been sent, rematches have been played and some have gained back more points than they lost.

[cleveridea]

imagine me going to lack and telling him i want to make an experiment where i abuse the rules to demonstrate a flaw in the rules.

Naturally he'd tell you not to do it because its rude, stupid and unnecessary.

normally if there's a problem there's the suggestion forum. this problem has been brought up several times and nothing has been done...

This is were you are an immature punk. Just because your outcome hasn't occurred yet, that does not mean nothing has been done. Your mentality throughout this thread has been that since you hadn't got your way, no one had lifted a finger. How do you know that? Clearly, lack and the team is aware of the issue. They have to balance what is best for the site and themselves, not you. Handle it.

as for the people that have been mercilessly hurt as you say, believe me pms with apologies have been sent, rematches have been played and some have gained back more points than they lost.

An apology is completely worthless unless you admit you were wrong. You have only embraced your righteousness deeper throughout this thread. You don't have a clue on how to apologize. You have demonstrated to me that your personality is deeply flawed in this regard. My elementary school aged son has a better sense of right, wrong and remorse than you.

You don't even have a clue that you continue, in your last post, to try and publicly ridicule lack's and his team's development and maintenance effort. You are devoid of tact and an ability to empathize with others. Everything is about what is important to you.

You are a piece of work. I'm done with you.

[The1exile]

You guys seriously need to chill.

DiM was making a point. He's made it. It got the issue fixed. Most importantly, it worked, and DiM since thanked lack for fixing it.

Now you guys are having a go at him, when it's done, reparations have been made, and the issue has been resolved. talk about beating a dead horse.

[treefiddy]

Clearly it took several months of preperation to make a temporary fix while a solution for the long term is discussed.

Hindsight being 20/20, this issue was fixed extremely fast after the results were posted. Just like in all aspects of life, having hard stats to prove your theory definately helps your arguement.

I'll make sure to light a candle for all those poor sweet innocent victims who walked away with more points than they would have received initially, and some positive feedback to go along with it.

[cleveridea]

You guys seriously need to chill.

DiM was making a point. He's made it. It got the issue fixed. Most importantly, it worked, and DiM since thanked lack for fixing it.

Now you guys are having a go at him, when it's done, reparations have been made, and the issue has been resolved. talk about beating a dead horse.

A very much a back-handed thanks, he still contends that when issues are brought up in Suggestions/Bugs nothing is ever done about them. How wonderful an indictment is that?

I agree that it "worked" but he's never once said what he did was "wrong" -- not even came close. Until he does, he deserves every kick in the shin he's getting.

[treefiddy]

I agree that it "worked" but he's never once said what he did was "wrong" -- not even came close. Until he does, he deserves every kick in the shin he's getting.

I assume arresting Rosa Parks and throwing her in jail was definately deserved too right?

[cleveridea]

I agree that it "worked" but he's never once said what he did was "wrong" -- not even came close. Until he does, he deserves every kick in the shin he's getting.

I assume arresting Rosa Parks and throwing her in jail was definately deserved too right?

Try to make a point, it really makes it so much more interesting for the reader. Am I Rosa Parks, Lack, you, DiM? I'm not sure, your parable is not obvious.

[treefiddy]

Try to make a point, it really makes it so much more interesting for the reader. Am I Rosa Parks, Lack, you, DiM? I'm not sure, your parable is not obvious.

LOL. And you were calling me blind.

How is this for my point:

No matter what good comes from something, should they have done something wrong, they deserve every punishment or negative reaction that comes from it. This is the fundamental premise that you have been spouting from your soap box this entire thread.

Rosa Parks is Rosa Parks. You can simply answer the question rather than try to dodge it. I'm betting you won't, because answering based on what you have been preaching would make you out to be a racist, and answering any other way would negate your entire arguement.

[cleveridea]

Try to make a point, it really makes it so much more interesting for the reader. Am I Rosa Parks, Lack, you, DiM? I'm not sure, your parable is not obvious.

LOL. And you were calling me blind.

How is this for my point:

No matter what good comes from something, should they have done something wrong, they deserve every punishment or negative reaction that comes from it. This is the fundamental premise that you have been spouting from your soap box this entire thread.

Rosa Parks is Rosa Parks. You can simply answer the question rather than try to dodge it. I'm betting you won't, because answering based on what you have been preaching would make you out to be a racist, and answering any other way would negate your entire arguement.

So Rosa Parks is Rosa Parks. What did she do that was wrong? You are the one using a parable, make it stick.

[cleveridea]

No matter what good comes from something, should they have done something wrong, they deserve every punishment or negative reaction that comes from it. This is the fundamental premise that you have been spouting from your soap box this entire thread.

You have restated my point exactly.

Except you leaving out the critical piece of the puzzle: The experimenters have never said they did anything wrong. Now kicking people in the shins, even when they've done something wrong, when they admit they've done wrong, that's wrong.

All I've ever seen is: what we did is right because it worked and that's just stinkin' thinkin' and you know it.

If you can make sense out of that Rosa Park equivalence to this situation, I'd be more than happy to answer. I frankly don't understand you at all on that. The closest thing I can figure is that Rosa Parks said what I did was right because it was the right thing to do and you damn well know it whitey.

No one in their right mind thinks that an old lady from the NAACP sitting on a bus seat is something wrong to do. I think nearly everyone (but the experiementers) thinks the experiment was the wrong thing to do. Does that answer you feeble parable?

[treefiddy]

No one in their right mind thinks that an old lady from the NAACP sitting on a bus seat is something wrong to do. I think nearly everyone (but the experiementers) thinks the experiment was the wrong thing to do.

And you directly contradict yourself there.

Rosa Parks broke the law. Breaking the law is *wrong*. As you already said, she would never admit that what she did was wrong. Under your blanket statement earlier, that would mean that Rosa Parks deserved every punishment that she received (btw, you still haven't directly answered my original question - you continue to dance around it).

[cleveridea]

No one in their right mind thinks that an old lady from the NAACP sitting on a bus seat is something wrong to do. I think nearly everyone (but the experiementers) thinks the experiment was the wrong thing to do.

And you directly contradict yourself there.

Rosa Parks broke the law. Breaking the law is *wrong*. As you already said, she would never admit that what she did was wrong. Under your blanket statement earlier, that would mean that Rosa Parks deserved every punishment that she received (btw, you still haven't directly answered my original question - you continue to dance around it).

If you don't understand that breaking unjust laws isn't morally wrong, then God help you. As far as the parallel to Rosa Parks you can't correlate this to this stupid experiment since I've never been claiming that any rules (laws) were broken - clearly all the rules were followed. I have been claiming that it was the morally wrong thing to do.

But in answer to your question, yes, definitely yes, Rosa Parks deserved every punishment under the law she received. As far as the parallel to Rosa Parks, as far as I know no one was punished as a result of this experiment. The only downside to DiM, et. al. has been to be criticized for being knobs. And apparently you can't handle even that minor consequence with even an ounce of contrition.

Answer this simple question: Was this experiment the MORALLY wrong thing to do? Wrong in terms of MORALLY right and wrong, not effective and ineffective. What genuine contrition has been offered? None. So, until I see some, away at those shins I go.

Your Rosa Parks parable has been exposed for the purely emotional appeal it was intended to be. Now answer my straightforward question.

[The1exile]

I agree that it "worked" but he's never once said what he did was "wrong" -- not even came close. Until he does, he deserves every kick in the shin he's getting.

Was it wrong? You and JR seem to be the only major proponents of that theory here.

[treefiddy]

Answer this simple question: Was this experiment the MORALLY wrong thing to do? Wrong in terms of MORALLY right and wrong, not effective and ineffective. What genuine contrition has been offered? None. So, until I see some, away at those shins I go.

Your Rosa Parks parable has been exposed for the purely emotional appeal it was intended to be. Now answer my straightforward question.

Your posts are repetitive and boring. If I don't see something your way, then I more blind than you thought, or God help me. I wonder what "shocked" reaction you will have about me next.

What I did was not morally wrong at all. I've put all the points back on the table for those that were deadbeated. I even entered the experiment knowing I would do this. No one was hurt, others gained, and the immediate problem was neutralized.

The specific act of deadbeating out of games with the intention to work the point system in your own favor is not morally right. It's a good thing I wasn't doing that.

Me bringing up Rosa Parks was not an emotional response at all. It was me trying to show how ridiculous your statements were. It was not a parable, I was also not trying to relate this experiment to what she did.

And apparently you can't handle even that minor consequence with even an ounce of contrition.

I'll gladly take any criticism from an upstanding member of the community, or rather, people who aren't trying to fling poo our way to distract the masses from the crap they have pulled, or are pulling. Of all the people that could throw the morality term around, you are not one of them.