ktarthan

HoT, I can't really tell who you're responding to so I'll just ask: who do you think called you an idiot? Other than Mr. Uruk here, I can't see anyone singling you out.

Oh I'm well aware. I was attempting to not get lengthy about this, but I guess the distance between what I said and what I meant was a bit too far and most people came to the conclusion that I'm trying to admonish people who troll. This is not the case. My OP carries two main ideas, and I'll try to break them down: "Attempting to convince the world that you're an idiot and succeeding" The basis of making someone dislike you is to be disagreeable. Whether by disagreeing directly with what they say, by espousing ideas that they strongly disagree with, or by acting in a way they strongly disagree with. The main point is to act contrary to their beliefs/opinions. The other main ingredient is believability; if they don't think you're sincere, then you don't effectively establish yourself as being disagreeable, and whatever you're trying to do won't really work. So, together this means being believably disagreeable. I used the word "idiot" but as I said, it can be pretty much any other derogatory term. The take away here is that success means the target(s) will be convinced you are wrong in some way. This really only covers a specific flavor of "trolling". It's probably the most common and most effective one, but anger isn't the only reaction that people can try to elicit. "is a victory neither hard won nor worth merit." Now that we've established the sort of trolling I'm talking about, this is where I call into question its merit. This part is a bit tricky, because there's a bit of implied context. That is, it's directed only to a person who is attempting to convince me otherwise. Or in other words: an openly proud troll. Since we established earlier that believability is a major component to effective trolling, a person who admits that they are indeed purposely trying to elicit a response is intentionally reducing their effectiveness. So in my eyes, the only reason to do so would be because they assign value to their actions. And once such a thought is expressed, it's now a valid target for criticism, which is exactly what the OP is. So, without discussion of trolling, the OP doesn't exist. I guess you could call it a meta criticism? Effectively, to those who admit they troll: "What, would you like a cookie?"

just wait for the upcoming expose "Ardus: At fault for literally everything ever"

Substitute "idiot" for any other derogatory term, really. It's trivial to get people to dislike you for any number of reasons. Simply saying that it was your intention to get them to dislike you doesn't lend the act any worth.

im gonna start my own alliance and call it gonos suck it

This is a bit of a departure from the regular theme of this blog as it doesn't exactly address an argument per se, though it often comes up argument adjacent. I'll make it short and sweet: Attempting to convince the world that you're an idiot and succeeding is a victory neither hard won nor worth merit.

Goodnight, sweet prince.

Death to the Neutral Meanace!

Pity be upon them who must face The Wrath of Allarchon,

Oh wow you are just SO funny XDDDD

It's. About. Time.

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1341359704' post='3002891'] Shout outs to the MK guys I fought so far. I picked famous ones so I'd know I'd get a good fight. Banksy, kthartan, Azaghul, Chickenzilla, Detlev and Blacky, I'll be seeing some of you again soon. [/quote] Despite spelling my name wrong, you and Haf were easily the most competent opponents I've faced this war (although I think Haf's warchest makes him a little reckless with his GAs) Also a special shout-out to the few CSN and NATO nations I faced that haven't learned about tech priority when nuking; you guys certainly made my life easier more than a few times!

[quote name='scytale' timestamp='1342783581' post='3012536'] No, no, no. Please, not the PARENTHESES. Anything but that. The humanity. The horror. The horror. The horror... BTW, how come you and Umb aren't close enough to know no more then taking wild guesses about Umb's war policies? [/quote] Because I don't care nearly enough to ask them about it.

[quote name='scytale' timestamp='1342731154' post='3012234'] Ha! I stirred someone up. So... why [i]does[/i] Umb have their lower tier in PM? [/quote] Oh yes, I'm so stirred up. Like a big angry pot of stew. As I've said before I'm not privy to Umbrella's war policies (as I assume is the case with most people not in Umbrella), but if I had to take a wild guess it'd be to avoid sending their lower tier into a protracted (and rather pointless) battle with Fark's sizeable amount of 25-40K nations. [i]Now[/i]. Before you try to equate one alliance sending its lower tier to PM to the majority of a coalition sending their upper tier to PM, please be forewarned that if you do I will have no choice but to write an [i]incredibly[/i] long blog post on the importance of context, and it's going to be absolutely [i]chock-full[/i] of parentheses and emphases, and [i]you're[/i] going to have to read the entire thing, and [i]nobody[/i] is going to enjoy any part of it.