Warrior General Games

So you're just going to ignore the fact that he clearly proved how not everyone else's game got ruined?

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
So you not caring about individual trophies means that it doesn't matter when that aspect of the game is ruined for those who do? Sorry, that doesn't fly. The simple matter of it is that your team purposefully tried to hurt the game experience for other agents, likely all of whom are paying customers. There is no way you can justify that. Iceman and Chaos Knight couldn't do it earlier. You can't do it now.

No, I want you to justify it form your perspective. I want a list of every agent that the actions of these two teams realistically hurt. These would be the three former leaders in each individual trophy category who have lost their spot to a player on Halifax as a direct result of this most recent game.

That list, would be the individuals who "we hurt"

Also, since I'm obviously not going to get a list from you- you're too overburdened with seeking inequitable punishment to bother with such petty things as "logic" but please at least attempt to go through the exercise- the results are rather interesting.

Or whatever, keep throwing yourself in the ring with Drago, because he's making some really concise, really well-thought-out arguments.

You're trying to change the argument. Don't expect me to fall for that. Let's just make an assumption here. We'll say only three agents in each category were hurt by their actions. We'll assume that no one else cares. They still acted in a way to purposefully ruin the game for those agents. One or one hundred, it doesn't matter; they tried to purposefully, and with the intent to do so, ruin the game for those agents. Now you answer my question. What justifies their actions in trying to ruin a portion of the game for other agents?

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
. Now you answer my question. What justifies their actions in trying to ruin a portion of the game for other agents?

This is actually a different question than you previously asked. Who is trying to change the argument now?

Originally posted by Gturtle
I mean god damn a full day of you bitching like a giant, pooping baby for this?

I've got a confession to make. I can't do it any longer. You're my favorite haliberry piece of trash when you're actually being funny. There's really not even a second place.

But still, fuck your face.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
You're trying to change the argument. Don't expect me to fall for that. Let's just make an assumption here. We'll say only three agents in each category were hurt by their actions. We'll assume that no one else cares. They still acted in a way to purposefully ruin the game for those agents. One or one hundred, it doesn't matter; they tried to purposefully, and with the intent to do so, ruin the game for those agents. Now you answer my question. What justifies their actions in trying to ruin a portion of the game for other agents?

Easy there logic, you're obviously fucking with dumbshit liberals.

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
You're trying to change the argument. Don't expect me to fall for that. Let's just make an assumption here. We'll say only three agents in each category were hurt by their actions. We'll assume that no one else cares. They still acted in a way to purposefully ruin the game for those agents. One or one hundred, it doesn't matter; they tried to purposefully, and with the intent to do so, ruin the game for those agents. Now you answer my question. What justifies their actions in trying to ruin a portion of the game for other agents?

Sorry, the burden of proof for the intent of the actions of the two teams is the responsibility of your side

Also, one could argue that their actions were done with the sole intent of enhancing the enjoyment of the simulator for the agents on Haliblack (or whatever their name is this year.) Since that is the entire intent of the position of a Team Owner, then my side's ridiculous assertion is that the actions of Gart888 in staging this game makes him not only the best Owner, but the ideal Owner.

Anxiously awaiting your rebuttal,
Gturtle

Originally posted by Drago
Easy there logic, you're obviously fucking with dumbshit liberals.

Logic doesn't mean what you think it means

Originally posted by Gturtle
Originally posted by Drago

Easy there logic, you're obviously fucking with dumbshit liberals.

Logic doesn't mean what you think it means

Mean doesn't mean what you think it means.

Originally posted by Gturtle
Originally posted by Longhornfan1024

You're trying to change the argument. Don't expect me to fall for that. Let's just make an assumption here. We'll say only three agents in each category were hurt by their actions. We'll assume that no one else cares. They still acted in a way to purposefully ruin the game for those agents. One or one hundred, it doesn't matter; they tried to purposefully, and with the intent to do so, ruin the game for those agents. Now you answer my question. What justifies their actions in trying to ruin a portion of the game for other agents?

Sorry, the burden of proof for the intent of the actions of the two teams is the responsibility of your side

Also, one could argue that their actions were done with the sole intent of enhancing the enjoyment of the simulator for the agents on Haliblack (or whatever their name is this year.) Since that is the entire intent of the position of a Team Owner, then my side's ridiculous assertion is that the actions of Gart888 in staging this game makes him not only the best Owner, but the ideal Owner.

Anxiously awaiting your rebuttal,
Gturtle

His actions should very well be towards that. All owners should. BUT FOR HIS ONE FUCKING TEAM. He shouldn't get to fuck with another team to go about his actions.

Good one.

Originally posted by Drago
His actions should very well be towards that. All owners should. BUT FOR HIS ONE FUCKING TEAM. He shouldn't get to fuck with another team to go about his actions.

What? He set his team up to exploit weaknesses he saw in the other team's defensive playbook.

Originally posted by Gturtle
Sorry, the burden of proof for the intent of the actions of the two teams is the responsibility of your side

Also, one could argue that their actions were done with the sole intent of enhancing the enjoyment of the simulator for the agents on Haliblack (or whatever their name is this year.) Since that is the entire intent of the position of a Team Owner, then my side's ridiculous assertion is that the actions of Gart888 in staging this game makes him not only the best Owner, but the ideal Owner.

Anxiously awaiting your rebuttal,
Gturtle

I'll take this two ways.

First, one could argue that their intent was the enjoyment of the sim for Hali agents, sure. But they purposefully changed their tactics with the knowledge that what they were doing would ruin the game for other agents. That's enough to hold them accountable. This is where you respond with the intent vs. knowledge argument, but I don't really care about that. I'm not writing a legal memo, I'm arguing on an online video game. The nuances of mens rea aren't important.

Second, this isn't the justice system and the rules of evidence and due process do not apply. All I have to do is refer to the many other times Gart or any of the other Hali agents have tried to make this game less fun for other agents involved. We can infer from those past actions that in this instance Gart was trying to ruin the game for other agents "just for the lolz." There's also the fact that many other hali agents admitted in this forum that they did it to mess up the game. You should confer with your teammates before making an argument that they've already refuted for me.

And you still haven't responded to my question. How do you justify their actions? So far there hasn't been a single agent defending what they did who could actually justify it. What is your justification?

Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
I'll take this two ways.

First, one could argue that their intent was the enjoyment of the sim for Hali agents, sure. But they purposefully changed their tactics with the knowledge that what they were doing would ruin the game for other agents. That's enough to hold them accountable. This is where you respond with the intent vs. knowledge argument, but I don't really care about that. I'm not writing a legal memo, I'm arguing on an online video game. The nuances of mens rea aren't important.

Second, this isn't the justice system and the rules of evidence and due process do not apply. All I have to do is refer to the many other times Gart or any of the other Hali agents have tried to make this game less fun for other agents involved. We can infer from those past actions that in this instance Gart was trying to ruin the game for other agents "just for the lolz." There's also the fact that many other hali agents admitted in this forum that they did it to mess up the game. You should confer with your teammates before making an argument that they've already refuted for me.

And you still haven't responded to my question. How do you justify their actions? So far there hasn't been a single agent defending what they did who could actually justify it. What is your justification?

You see, you keep arguing your point and like one sentence in you go off to batshit insane world where basic notions (like when you accuse somebody of something it's not automatically assumed that what you said happened, happened.) You're literally so far away from rational discourse that it's remarkable that you're typing so many words. I believe that you believe that other halifax agents believe that the reasoning for Gart's actions were to fuck over other people, if that's any consolation.

How do I justify their (who are they? I need another list, I'm afraid ) actions? They acted in the best interest of the agents they represent. Full stop.