gopher_p

Perhaps you are the one who should pull his fingers from his ears. Or maybe I should have been clearer in my first post. I don't know. I quite sure you should spend more trying trying to understand and less time defending your position with insults. Maybe think about what I mean when I say "well-defined" and "goal" and "well-defined goal" in the context of the games that you mentioned. You're a smart guy. I'm sure you can work it out if you think about it for more than a second, so I won't insult you by spelling it out to you in detail as if you were four years old.

Go read "What is DayZ?" Banditry' date=' and the slaying of bandits, is one of the three well-defined goals. It's actually #2. [b']Above survive. (A) I said "well-defined", and I meant it. (B) I assume you're referring to the "Step 1 ... Step 2 ... Step 3 ..." graphic on the main page? In that case, you should note that Step 2 refers to the slaying of zombies and bandits. It says nothing about banditry. You may argue that banditry falls under Step 1, scavenging, and I would be inclined to agree. However I maintain that the only goal is to survive, Step 3. The other steps listed are merely suggestions towards achieving that goal. It is not necessary to scavenge or slay. Okay' date=' then. Don't just say it. Discuss it. Tell me why rampant PvP is "unsportsmanlike" in a game specifically designed to permit and encourage it. [/quote'] Fair enough. Though I won't argue that "rampant PvP" is unsportsmanlike. For one, it's too broad a term (rampant PvP). Also, unsportsmanlike behavior is hard to define in black and white terms. It's easier to recognize when you see it. Killing a freshly-spawned, unarmed player is about the only act that I can think of that would nearly always be considered (at least by me) to be unsportsmanlike. I think that players should let their real-world sense of morality influence the decisions they make in DayZ. I think that players should be able to justify their actions without resorting to tired, easy excuses such as "Because I can", "It's just a game", "This is how people would act if this were real", etc. If the goal is to survive, then that should be at the heart of every decision made. Of course, there's no need to be super serious all the time. I understand that people are playing to have fun and to entertain themselves and others. But those playing for fun/entertainment need to at least recognize when their enjoyment bumps up against another person's experience in the game world and act appropriately according to their real-world sense of what is right and wrong. Regarding "a game specifically designed to permit and encourage (PvP)": It is my understanding that the "game" was designed to elicit emotional reactions from players. Player interaction is permitted. PvP conflict is permitted. Aside from the limited number of vehicles on each server, I have yet to find anything in the game world that encourages conflict. That is something that the individuals playing brought to the table. Just because the game gives you a gun, that doesn't mean that it's encouraging you to use it against another player. Hell the game doesn't even give you a gun anymore. You have to go find one and pick it up.

Agreed

Hover over the waypoint with your mouse, then press the delete key.

skipping one or two keys saves me valuable time when i type. i am working on perpetual motion machines and life is already short as it is. (1) Skipping all of the vowels will also save you time when you type something up' date=' but it would also render the resulting text equally unreadable (though it has been shown that people can read text missing vowels). So either come up with a better excuse or do the reader a favor and write properly. This is an internet form, not your goddamn phone. (2) Perpetual motion machines are a physical impossibility. You're wasting your time. Use some of it to write properly. (3) SOURCE. Give us a name, a title, something. [/quote'] 1. yep, i could do it too and your fragile wittle mind would automatically put fill them in when you read it. but that would involve a lot of re writing of hard wired neurons in my brain, and long story short it wouldnt be as fast or efficient. 2. you dont say? i imagine that someone like you who takes things so seriously must rage quit a lot. *pats shoulder* its ok bro, im here for you. 3. why should i do that? none of it is relevant. hence why i cut out all the nasty hating garbage, and... come to think of it, lower case I's lack of proper spelling and grammar??? its almost like i know what a plagiarism is. if anything your argument is a bit of a double edged sword. do you really think facists and racists arent gonna KOS certain skin colors if the zombie appoc occured? loool. 1. Let's get one thing clear: Try as you might, you are in no position to insult my intelligence. That said, it's ultimately up to you whether or not you want to follow the generally accepted conventions for proper writing. 2. I didn't ragequit. A physicist (an actual physicist ... you know PhD, published in peer-reviewed journals, active in research, etc.) told me that it was impossible in the current model of physics. I believed him. But by all means, continue your work. Just know that there is a difference between "They haven't figured it out yet" and "They've demonstrated that it's not possible". While you're at it, maybe you can find three natural numbers, none of which is 0 or 1, such that the sum of the cubes of the first two is equal to the cube of the third. I've been told that it can't be done, but it sounds like you're up to the challenge. 3. You should do it because we asked. Let us be the judge regarding it's relevance. We're not asking for a source so that we can judge your work or because we think you've plagiarized, we're asking for a source so that we may judge the original work on it's own merits. 4(?) If you'd like to respond to a post I made in another topic, please do so in the other topic. When doing so, you should be wary of negating claims that I never made, yada yada, strawman arguments and such.

skipping one or two keys saves me valuable time when i type. i am working on perpetual motion machines and life is already short as it is. (1) Skipping all of the vowels will also save you time when you type something up, but it would also render the resulting text equally unreadable (though it has been shown that people can read text missing vowels). So either come up with a better excuse or do the reader a favor and write properly. This is an internet form, not your goddamn phone. (2) Perpetual motion machines are a physical impossibility. You're wasting your time. Use some of it to write properly. (3) SOURCE. Give us a name, a title, something.

Dude. There's a shift key for a fucking reason. Edit: The power of Christ compels thee to provide a fucking source.

Guilt is a natural reaction when you've done something wrong. I would ask you where it is that you find fun in killing people in this game. If it's fun because you know that you've harmed another person (another person, not another person's character), then that is a sign of immaturity at best and may qualify as antisocial/sociopathic behavior. If it's fun for another reason, I would encourage you to consider the amount of "not fun" you are causing when you kill. I'm not suggesting that you change the way you play. I'm just saying that you should consider the consequences of your in-game actions relating to other players and decide for yourself what is the proper course of action.

The "It's a game, and I can do whatever I want" argument is not valid when said game involves other human beings. The fact the other person isn't sitting next to you doesn't cause all of the social norms that dictate the way that we should treat one another to suddenly become invalid.

It goes both ways. Most of the medical supplies would be of little use to you without another person there to administer them. If you're going to argue that they may need your aid' date=' then it's eually likely that you'll need theirs. Obviously, this is the question at hand. It's not even a point you need to make. We probably disagree on the probabilities, though. This is not a new point. It's about who you can trust.

I never accomplished much before I started using the various online maps. I purposefully stayed away from the maps at first, trying to find my way through the world with only what the game had given me. But I ran across many of the issues that you mentioned. In addition to being able to find your way around, it helps to know where exactly to look for loot. The game is exponentially easier when you know where to go and how to get there.

Would you kindly quote the part of Kurmuh's post which constitutes an ad hominem argument and then paraphrase it in the form of an ad hominem argument to demonstrate that you actually know what one is. An example of an ad hominem argument for you to use as your model: CrossShade has argued that Kurmuh's post contains an ad hominem argument. CrossShade also thinks that the third person singular form of the verb to be contains an apostrophe. Therefore Kurmuh's post does not contain an ad hominem argument.

Actually I did think of that, but it was well after I had posted. So I thought I'd wait to see if anyone would notice. Kudos to you, my friend, for actually reading the whole post, thinking about what was written, and discovering a flaw in my reasoning. I stand by the rest of my remarks, however. And no, I do not use/abuse this exploit.