Second Worst DLC

DairyChimera759 · October 17, 2024, 9:20pm

Player870583437:

Zaphiron01:

Player870583437:

You never said anything about him calling me cringe, which you knew about, but did call me petty for saying that his topic is cringe in return, that does sounds an awful lot like only having an issue with only one of us. You have a problem because it’s retaliatory? how does that work? if someone comes and punches you in the face, and then you punch back, the issue is with the person who retaliated not the person who started it? explain your morality because it sounds an awful lot that you have an issue with people who retaliate it not with people who start it.

It’s common sense that Eye for an eye is a moronic standpoint to hold. Everybody loses, with no exception. Most of the time the vindication isn’t even worth it. So what if he calls your comment cringe? You really have to lower yourself to his level and reply? Now you both look dumb and petty. You’re mad I didn’t call him out instead of you? I didn’t see his comment until after I posted my original comment, and I went back and edited to clarify. You were the one who took it personally and attacked me. So now, I’m defending myself, because you took offense, because you wanted to be petty and I caught that first. Happy?

I’d argue that retaliation > starting it. You are justified to respond with equal force, the fault is on the one who started it, because why did he start it? this “common sense that Eye for an eye is a moronic standpoint to hold” sounds exactly like that meme about the school teacher giving morality lessons only to the kid who fought back. Yes, school the bullied kid, never the bully, surely that would make the world a better place.

I also find it strange how you made a comment that “common sense that Eye for an eye is a moronic standpoint to hold” and in the same paragraphs contradicted yourself with “So now, I’m defending myself”, so now you’re doing exactly what you said one shouldn’t do because it’s dumb and petty?

How was I the one who attacked you when you called me cringe despite me having nothing to do with you and then said, and I quote: “Agreed. So… Why are you being petty, when you’ve reached that understanding? Is it because he called you cringe for asking for Romanians?” you are not defending yourself from anything given what you said, you are on the offense.

Zaphiron01:

Player870583437:

As for bad faith, it’s not at all in bad faith, not more than his anyway. He doesn’t like Battle for Greece DLC, expressed this opinion 7 times already, calling it cringe on multiple topics. Including on the topics about Romanians where he called both me & the suggestion for Romanians in Battle for Greece cringe. At this point, I think his main issue was that I liked Battle for Greece and Romanians rather than Romanians alone.

Ok. But what was your reasoning behind hunting down his thread specifically instead of replying on that one, or replying in pms? How can you justify that? Besides, in the classical timeframe, you should be asking for Dacians rather than Romanians. Romanians came after Rome.

I didn’t. I looked over the forum, saw this threat, clicked it, “oh, looks like it’s the same guy who called Battle for Greece 7 times already”. I was asking for Romanians in standard AoE2 like we had 4th century Rome in standard AoE2.

Zaphiron01:

Player870583437:

So how much in good faith was his argument? I at least never made it personal, never called him personally cringe, just his topic, unlike him. And did so in retaliation, rather than being the one who started it. Yet you still find me the big boogeyman over him.

I’ve never argued his argument was in good faith. As to why I find you more in the wrong, it’s because there were other ways to go about it. You acted immature, when it was totally avoidable. You deserve to be called out for it, full stop. Your tantrum towards me is only proving it moreso.

School teacher morality again, weren’t there other ways to go about it for him too? didn’t he acted immature too when it was totally avoidable? but you don’t care about that. My “tantrum” only makes you mad because it exposes in plain light your double standards.

Besides, you said quote: “The reason I’m not calling his out is because 1. I caught yours first, and 2. I am participating in this thread, not the other one. So in my eyes, your just being asinine and retaliating against him in bad faith on his own topic (…)”. Specifically saying that you called me out instead of me, because I’m retaliating against him in bad faith. And I said he didn’t acted in good faith either. And now you agree. If you take this whole thought to it’s logical conclusion: reason you called me out not him cause I act in bad faith → he didn’t act in good faith either and you agree. Do I need to spell the big H word or it’s dead obvious at his point? You basically “reason I’m not calling his out [but call me]” is for something that is exactly what he did.

Zaphiron01:

Player870583437:

In the comment you called me out, you knew about his comments too, since you mentioned it. So yeah you may have caught mine first, I don’t know, but when you made the comment where you singled me out, you were aware of his comment too and that it was made first, that one I know

As I mentioned already, I happened to find the original comment after my initial post, and edited it post publish to clarify. Regardless, I was not aware of the original issue until after I posted. So no, originally I was unaware, but made aware later, through both you and the other thread.

That excuse seems pretty slim considering, as I said in the comment you just replied to, that you mentioned it. You couldn’t have known he called me cringe for asking for Romanians without vising that topic as I did not tell you about it. So no, I was not the one who made you aware of it.

Yet you singled me out once again:

Zaphiron01:

Agreed. So… Why are you being petty, when you’ve reached that understanding?

Is it because he called you cringe for asking for Romanians?

The school teacher morality meme inserts itself.

Zaphiron01:

Player870583437:

That sounds more like a feeble self-justification. What difference would it made if I replied to this topic or to that topic? none whatsoever. you may participate in this topic but context matters, you can’t put your horse lens on and say “I only see what is happening in this topic” especially when we both know that’s not true and you are aware of what happened outside the topic too, but simply took no issue with it there. Besides, when he made that comment on the topic it began on, I had no issue with it, as that was the first time I saw his “Battle for Greece DLC is cringe” comment, which was like “fine, someone who dislikes Battle for Greece, no big deal”. It was only after that I saw the forum is full of his comments like this, and he also made a dedicated topic about it, that I pointed out his behavior is cringe. Which you took issue with, for doing the same thing that he did except less.

Funny, you say this and you’ve been just trying to justify seeking him out and retaliating against him, but all I see from you are weak justifications myself. How many people on this forum have acted the same way? I recall much of the same behavior revolve around dlc concepts from Europe, both for and against. He’s hardly the first person to act like this. Yet, rarely anyone calls them out… Hm, wonder why?

Funny how you put words into my mouth and engage in whataboutism yet say my justification is weak while the irony is lost on you.

I’ve never said that I was trying to seek him out. Even more than that, I specifically told you the opposite. Perhaps my argument wouldn’t be as weak if you wouldn’t put words into my mouth. If I have such a weak justification why is your only excuse whataboutism?

You didn’t address anything I was saying and instead went for “what about the rest of the forum”. Fine, don’t call him out, you don’t have to call him out if you don’t want to. But the fact that you didn’t call him out but instead called me out for retaliating and then said “this is why you are worse than him” with reasons that also apply to him is just high school teacher morality. At this point you’re just doing a backwards rationalization for your bad behavior.

Zaphiron01:

Player870583437:

What you did was pure hypocrisy. Your issue is not who the one who started but the one who retaliated. The world would be a better place if we wouldn’t have people who think like this. Honest.

Hypocrite? No, not really. I’ve never said he wasn’t in the wrong for going and panning your comment. You are correct in one aspect, though; I have issue with the one who retaliated, not the one who started. But not because what he did wasn’t wrong.

Yes, pretty much textbook hypocrite. Exactly, you never said he wasn’t in the wrong, you never said he was in the wrong, you didn’t call him out, you just didn’t care what he did, but you did call me out, you did say I was in the wrong, and specifically said I’m worse than him, using the same arguments that would apply to him.

Wow, you genuinely believe the issue is not who the one who started but the one who retaliated.

5ychsgmdvp561750×473 48.6 KB

Heck, I’ll steal this, it’s literally what you just said, “I have issue with the one who retaliated, not the one who started”. Exactly what this meme is about. Fits like a glove yet you wholeheartedly deny it.

Zaphiron01:

It’s because of people with your mindset that people die every day from entirely preventable reasons. In my eyes, the world would be a better place without people who think like that.

How so? genuine question. Your moral code sounds like if a thug with a knife wants to kill you, and you fight back and you won, it’s a death with entirely preventable reasons, like you’re not supposed to fight back. Nevermind that those entirely preventable reasons are also on the thug, him deciding not to try and kill you was an entirely preventable reason.

Or someone tries to rob your house and kills your family and you kill him too. Why is your focus on the entirely preventable reason on the one whose family was killed, but don’t care about the entirely preventable reasons of the one who killed his family? what makes one carry more weight than the other to you?

And you yourself, I’m not seeing you practicing what you preach, you are defending yourself, I say this is not the case but let’s stick to that hypothesis, why are you defending yourself, when you yourself say “It’s common sense that Eye for an eye is a moronic standpoint to hold” and “I have issue with the one who retaliated, not the one who started”, you have to defend yourself, yet you preach this which is the opposite.

At the end of the day this is an irrelevant forum squabble but I’m looking at the bigger picture of it.

Genuine questions, let’s have a separate discussion about this.

Zaphiron01:

DairyChimera759:

Bro has high school teacher moral code

Lol, no. Looks similar, I’ll admit, but I’d have come down on the other guy too had I seen his other post first. I called this guy out for acting cringe, and he chose to continue it. So here we are.

He said more one meme than I could say in 100 words.

Did I cause this? oh boy

My sweet summer child… just wow, just wow, you are not wrong, and this comes from a guy who hates spin-off series like Battle for Greece. However, and this is an important however, walls of text even if true are not going to help you with anything, I feel like there are better ways to spend your time, it doesn’t look like you will change his mind anytime soon. Maybe Zaphiron hates Battle for Greece too and that explains his stubbornness, or maybe he genuinely believes he did no wrong, it makes little difference.

The smartest thing you said is that at the end of the day this is an irrelevant forum squabble, so why not be an example to Zaphiron, show him what it means to practice what you preach, and leave this discussion alone. This is not me hitting on the bullied again, this is me saying it’s not worth it, and not for being the better person although it could be but at the end of the day it’s an irrelevant internet discussion. You are also on the topic for people who hate Battle for Greece so you will be outgunned, no matter if you hold the truth or not, yeah, you were wronged, no they don’t care, because you hate what they like and like what they hate, just wanted to point this out to you as you sound very naive from this point of view.

This is the real reason he had no issue with StarGazer’s wrongdoings but took an issue with yours, welcome to the real life.

I hate to destroy your childhood but you act like truth is this big shield you have and it can 100% protect you from anything because you have the Truth with a capital T, interest primates and interest dictates what the “truth” is.

As for me, I understand it’s just a game, and I can hate Battle for Greece without being tribalistic and turning into a jerk because of it.

Because truth is not the end all be all, everyone who was burn at the stake for speaking against the Catholic church is a testament to that, and because this is not worth it regardless of who is right or wrong, it’s simply not worth it, because you have better things to do than arguing with strangers online even if you were wronged.

I can understand being mad that StarGazer was a jerk to you, I can understand being even more mad when Zaphiron was an even bigger jerk to you when you seeked out justice and then refusing to admit it. But you must understand that

Do you think anybody is going to care? do you think anybody is going to read your comments and realize how wronged you were in fact and that you’re actually a victim? Just like the meme that made your day, do you think Zaphiron is suddenly going to change and say “I was wrong”, don’t be that naive. Even if you provide him 1.000.000 reasons, it’s not about reasons.

Now why do you think the high school teacher doesn’t care when the kid is getting bullied? think about that and you will have your answer to your questions.

You sound like truth is your shepherd but the reality is , truth is not this shield you can raise and gives you 100% immunity.