MilkBD wrote:
@Get1, that's a very lazy response for the following reasons.
1.) The person would already know what the bug is. And if it's what I believe it to be. -Either the EOT Spy Refresh, Keeping units in water or on allied colonies, Outpost placement ect.- Then this should still be an issue but isnt changeable in the middle of a round.
2.) The way its worded makes it appear as you are trying to bolster your own intelligence while shrouding yourself w/ a mysterious persona. Which I find childish and provocative. I'm not sure if you are hoping to be smolder the wood to start an argument or are just testing people patience. Regardless of your reasons or true intentions that how it comes off.
3.)
Quote:
One bug being exploited had the potential to be a total game changer at an unexpected moment and totally changed the dynamics of the game and the other bug didn't.
This isn't worded correctly, "had" is past tense signifying that it's no longer an issue and if this is true the whole comment is irrelevant.
You have pointed your finger directly at me and made some nonsense statements about me and what I wrote so i will respond below -
Speaking of which the only lazy response here is the one you just made
1) Of course he knew what the bug is. He decided to make a comment as if the problem was something else and make a joke out of this and took a cheap shot at geen. I understood what he did and i made a comment as if he didn't understand. Nothing lazy there! I do however believe he thinks the situation created by the bug should not have been amended.
If you had payed attention to the conversation and the thread as a whole you would know that it was nothing to do with " the EOT Spy Refresh, Keeping units in water or on allied colonies". You wouldn't have had to list them because you would know what it was about.
The original post by princekael2 (that i responded to) was having a cheap shot at Geen. The issue was regarding IIII exploiting a bug and making an op in a place that the game mechanics didn't allow for, and princekael2 seemed to be trying to make out that it should have been allowed but wasnt "after geen had a gigantic tizzy over 1/2 a kilometer of space :X"
To cut a long story short this was a potential game changer ( as mentioned in my last post)
This situation regarding exploiting a bug so an op can be placed where it has no right to be placed IS an issue. At no point did i say it isn't an issue and at no point did i say it was or should be changeable in the middle of the round so please try out your "straw man" arguments on someone else. (and you accused me of starting an argument
)
2) you wrote - "The way its worded makes it appear as you are trying to bolster your own intelligence while shrouding yourself w/ a mysterious persona."
This is REALLY funny
Im not going apologise for the way i write. I write how I write
and how does the way someone write bolster their intelligence anyways?
Is this some scientific breakthrough I'm not aware of?
I do think about what I'm writing whilst I write it and I try not to make "straw man" arguments
I never thought of myself being "shrouded in a mysterious persona"
I'm just a guy who's playing CE and likes to respond when i see someone making ridiculous statements on the CE thread. Just like I'm responding now
As for your "childish and provocative" statement
Im not even going to respond to that one
You haven't taken the time to read and understand what was being discussed so why should I be concerned about how I come across to you? the above statements you made whilst pointing the finger at me says a lot more about you than they do about me!
which leads me on to your last point
3)
MilkBD wrote:
3.)
Quote:
One bug being exploited had the potential to be a total game changer at an unexpected moment and totally changed the dynamics of the game and the other bug didn't.
This isn't worded correctly, "had" is past tense signifying that it's no longer an issue and if this is true the whole comment is irrelevant.
That statement i made (that you quoted) was in response to princekael2 talking about teams in CE making every team member a minister. His statement was address to me.
To my mind prinekael2 was implying that the bug situation regarding the IIII op and the bug situation regarding the ministers were of equal importance. If not why mention the minister situation in the context of the op bug?
I disagreed and so i made that comment
If you had took the time to understand what was being discussed before trying to correct me you would, hopefully, of understood that it WAS worded correctly and it WAS NOT irrelevant.
yes, "had" is the past tense. i used that word because i was discussing the past
The situation regarding the bug being exploited to build an op (which I mentioned above) happened in the past and but it WAS an issue because it was that situation that princekael2 was originally referring to.
Because it was an issue my statement WAS relevant.
if your going to point a finger at me and accuse me of things you should at the very least make a little effort to understand what is being discussed and the context in which they are being discussed!
Edit - amended a spelling error
