Place to let off steam about dice and players

e_i_pi · Post by **e_i_pi** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:38 am

It reaches 50/50 odds at 5v5, and as far as "near 100%" goes, how near is near? You can't simply say "near 100%" - 60% is near 100% compared to 10%, and 99% is not near to 100% when compared to 99.99%. I suggest your roommate study a bit more before he submits his assignment.

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:42 am

I still don't understand why it matters if some people like to get together to complain about dice and other players. For example, let's say there are four players (A, B, C, and D) and one mod (Mod X). Players A and B want to get together to discuss how annoying Player C is. Player D wants nothing to do with this discussion. So, here are our scenarios:

Scenario 1 - Players A and B create a forum or discussion group wherein they discuss how much they cannot stand how Player C plays. Player D doesn't go into this forum because he/she does not want anything to do with this discussion. Player C chooses not to go into this forum because he/she does not want to retaliate against Players A and B. Mod X does nothing because no one has complained.

Scenario 2 - Players A and B create a forum wherein they discuss Player C. Player D does not go into this forum because he/she does not want anything to do with this discussion. Player C goes into the forum to argue his/her case to Players A and B. Mod X does nothing because no one has complained.

Scenario 2.1 - Same as Scenario 2, except that Player C complains and Mod X tells Player C to "foe and move on."

Scenario 2.2 - Same as Scenario 2.1, except Mod X bans Players A and B

Scenario 3 - Players A and B create a forum wherein they discuss Player C. Player D goes into this forum because he/she is either curious or because he/she longs to assert how he/she is superior to Players A and B because he/she is "an adult" or "unconcerned about mere internet games." Player D then complains to Mod X. Mod X removes Players A and B from the website and shuts down the forum.

We've had Scenarios 2.1, 2.2, and 3. We don't have Scenario 1. Let's bring Scenario 1 to conquerclub please.

HayesA · Post by **HayesA** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:45 am

Well, fine 3vs2... but i disagree that's an effective counter for defense on ties. Primarily on the basis that it's still a random sample. I strongly believe that the attacker should have the advantage in dice rolls, especially when out numbering the defense by a large margin.

/sarcasm.

Also, e_i_pi, the assignment was not to interpret the rules, but rather write a mathematical/statistical program based on the rules of Risk. So, since the programs confirms to the rules of Risk, and is working 100% according to, then it is complete right?

xelabale · Post by **xelabale** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:57 am

HayesA wrote:Well, fine 3vs2... but i disagree that's an effective counter for defense on ties. Primarily on the basis that it's still a random sample. I strongly believe that the attacker should have the advantage in dice rolls, especially when out numbering the defense by a large margin.

/sarcasm.

Also, e_i_pi, the assignment was not to interpret the rules, but rather write a mathematical/statistical program based on the rules of Risk. So, since the programs confirms to the rules of Risk, and is working 100% according to, then it is complete right?

Kids do not mix risk and alcohol or you too can end up like this.

BigBallinStalin · Post by **BigBallinStalin** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:24 am

Coronaholic wrote:I had a territory with 5 and was going up against one with 2. Each round I lost.

Get angry, god damnit! I want you ALL TO GET UP! I want you all get up and go to your window, and I want you all to yell, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

HayesA · Post by **HayesA** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:08 am

nice reference!

xelabale wrote:
HayesA wrote:Well, fine 3vs2... but i disagree that's an effective counter for defense on ties. Primarily on the basis that it's still a random sample. I strongly believe that the attacker should have the advantage in dice rolls, especially when out numbering the defense by a large margin.

/sarcasm.

Also, e_i_pi, the assignment was not to interpret the rules, but rather write a mathematical/statistical program based on the rules of Risk. So, since the programs confirms to the rules of Risk, and is working 100% according to, then it is complete right?

Kids do not mix risk and alcohol or you too can end up like this.

actually, for the record, i've been dry for a record 3 days!

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:26 am

xelabale wrote:Yes, make more rules about stuff we can't say - what a great idea.

Wow, I never thought youd come around. I guess you were reading my posts after all.

Though the rules we have now are pretty simple, and I dont think we need more. No flaming, no bigotry or racism pretty much covers the violations.

Your argument is that we need to reinstall a place for them to reduce those things, and mine is simply that not having one is what keeps those down. In fact, Ill go one step further, and suggest that if flame wars was never available in the first place, and not allowed to get so hopelessly out of control, we would not have to deal with the "problem" you suggest of flaming in the GD.

You suggested that letting off steam will create less steam, when it is more than obvious, that letting off steam, only creates more steam, so setting a place up for the steam, would essentially create the steam. If players have steam, they are best off, dealing with it maturely, as they are in all parts of society. And as in all parts of society there are rules to curb the "blowing off of steam" as there should be.

It then stands to follow once again, that opening flame wars again would only re-invent the mistake. In any case, its all for naught. Flame wars is gone for a plethora of reasons, and the most important of those being that its simply something the owners do not want to be associated with, or even directly responsible for, so any discussion of re-instating them, is per functionary, and only for fun of course.

xelabale · Post by **xelabale** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:39 pm

Grrrrnnnnntttzzzzzzzzz

The sound of fitz suppressing another emotion.

xelabale · Post by **xelabale** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:02 pm

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:55 pm

xelabale wrote:Some topics from the 1st 1.5 pages of the GD for your enlightenment - all would have been in FW, all are negative.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99548
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99164
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99053
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99297
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99268
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=98962
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99062
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=97764
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=98924
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=98048
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=98655
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=95862
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=98138

There is a big difference between a negative thread, and a flame thread.

Negative posts are vital to conversation, disagreement is vital to discussion, and eliminating them would be pointless. What i not allowed is excessive flaming. By definition, this thread would be negative too, but it fits just fine in GD in my opinion.

xelabale · Post by **xelabale** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:40 am

But fitz, how does being negative help? These people should surely grow up and behave more maturely, for being negative simply engenders negativity in a never ending spiral. It should therefore be stamped out and only positive threads should be allowed in the forums.

Right?

Or am I missing a witty joke here, because surely you can't be being that hypocritical or downright stupid?

You seem to assume I'm talking about flaming. I never said anything about it, look at the title of the thread. I submit that you have a little pet crusade and you have projected meaning onto this thread that isn't there. I suggest you grow up a bit and behave more maturely, rather than looking for petty little fights where none exist. In your last post you switch to completely supporting my stance, for crying out loud.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:45 am

xelabale wrote:But fitz, how does being negative help? These people should surely grow up and behave more maturely, for being negative simply engenders negativity in a never ending spiral. It should therefore be stamped out and only positive threads should be allowed in the forums.

Right?

Or am I missing a witty joke here, because surely you can't be being that hypocritical or downright stupid?

You seem to assume I'm talking about flaming. I never said anything about it, look at the title of the thread. I submit that you have a little pet crusade and you have projected meaning onto this thread that isn't there. I suggest you grow up a bit and behave more maturely, rather than looking for petty little fights where none exist. In your last post you switch to completely supporting my stance, for crying out loud.

No, because negative is a subjective term, and one mans negative is another mans positive, which breeds healthy discussion. I have no need for a fight here, and certainly not a petty little one. I simply disagree with the entire body and reasoning behind your post and showed why. Your stance is that there should be a separate arena for flaming and arguing in order to reduce flaming and arguing, but I showed, that such an arena, ie flame wars, would only create more.

You really are taking this too personally. It actually illustrates my point to some degree, ironically enough though. As we disagree, you seem to get more and more wound up. If there was a separate forum, perhaps the discussion would even revert to personal insults, and flaming, which is why I am simply providing my point of view that I think one is not only unnecessary, but counter-productive.

I am sorry you think the fact that I completely disagree with your idea says something about my maturity, and that you feel that attacking it on some level helps your argument, but there is nothing I can do about that, except perhaps to suggest you take your own advice.

khazalid · Post by **khazalid** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:48 am

xelabale wrote:Grrrrnnnnntttzzzzzzzzz

The sound of fitz suppressing another emotion.

i have to admit i lol'd a little

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:00 am

AAFitz wrote:
xelabale wrote:But fitz, how does being negative help? These people should surely grow up and behave more maturely, for being negative simply engenders negativity in a never ending spiral. It should therefore be stamped out and only positive threads should be allowed in the forums.

Right?

Or am I missing a witty joke here, because surely you can't be being that hypocritical or downright stupid?

You seem to assume I'm talking about flaming. I never said anything about it, look at the title of the thread. I submit that you have a little pet crusade and you have projected meaning onto this thread that isn't there. I suggest you grow up a bit and behave more maturely, rather than looking for petty little fights where none exist. In your last post you switch to completely supporting my stance, for crying out loud.

No, because negative is a subjective term, and one mans negative is another mans positive, which breeds healthy discussion. I have no need for a fight here, and certainly not a petty little one. I simply disagree with the entire body and reasoning behind your post and showed why. Your stance is that there should be a separate arena for flaming and arguing in order to reduce flaming and arguing, but I showed, that such an arena, ie flame wars, would only create more.

You really are taking this too personally. It actually illustrates my point to some degree, ironically enough though. As we disagree, you seem to get more and more wound up. If there was a separate forum, perhaps the discussion would even revert to personal insults, and flaming, which is why I am simply providing my point of view that I think one is not only unnecessary, but counter-productive.

I am sorry you think the fact that I completely disagree with your idea says something about my maturity, and that you feel that attacking it on some level helps your argument, but there is nothing I can do about that, except perhaps to suggest you take your own advice.

Though it appears to be falling on blind eyes (or deaf ears), I'll ask this question again:

Assuming you (AAFitz) have the option of not entering a forum for flaming, why do you care if there is such a forum? It's a valid and serious question which no one has yet answered.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:47 am

thegreekdog wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
xelabale wrote:But fitz, how does being negative help? These people should surely grow up and behave more maturely, for being negative simply engenders negativity in a never ending spiral. It should therefore be stamped out and only positive threads should be allowed in the forums.

Right?

Or am I missing a witty joke here, because surely you can't be being that hypocritical or downright stupid?

You seem to assume I'm talking about flaming. I never said anything about it, look at the title of the thread. I submit that you have a little pet crusade and you have projected meaning onto this thread that isn't there. I suggest you grow up a bit and behave more maturely, rather than looking for petty little fights where none exist. In your last post you switch to completely supporting my stance, for crying out loud.

No, because negative is a subjective term, and one mans negative is another mans positive, which breeds healthy discussion. I have no need for a fight here, and certainly not a petty little one. I simply disagree with the entire body and reasoning behind your post and showed why. Your stance is that there should be a separate arena for flaming and arguing in order to reduce flaming and arguing, but I showed, that such an arena, ie flame wars, would only create more.

You really are taking this too personally. It actually illustrates my point to some degree, ironically enough though. As we disagree, you seem to get more and more wound up. If there was a separate forum, perhaps the discussion would even revert to personal insults, and flaming, which is why I am simply providing my point of view that I think one is not only unnecessary, but counter-productive.

I am sorry you think the fact that I completely disagree with your idea says something about my maturity, and that you feel that attacking it on some level helps your argument, but there is nothing I can do about that, except perhaps to suggest you take your own advice.

Though it appears to be falling on blind eyes (or deaf ears), I'll ask this question again:

Assuming you (AAFitz) have the option of not entering a forum for flaming, why do you care if there is such a forum? It's a valid and serious question which no one has yet answered.

Actually, I have answered this already, with my posts, so completely, that is is obvious you could not possibly have read them at all. Though technically Im not sure how much I actually do care...really I just posted why it was a bad idea, and how it would not help, and only that the premise of the original poster was faulty.

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:08 am

AAFitz wrote:Actually, I have answered this already, with my posts, so completely, that is is obvious you could not possibly have read them at all. Though technically Im not sure how much I actually do care...really I just posted why it was a bad idea, and how it would not help, and only that the premise of the original poster was faulty.

It results in flaming in other forums... am I correct in assuming that this is your answer? I have read all of your posts in this topic and I have yet to see another reason; therefore, I will assume this is your only answer.

With all due respect, I completely disagree. Further, if it did result in flaming in other forums, the moderators have recourse to punish people who flame in other forums (as they do now).

I just find it extremely fascinating that a small number of vocal users are so adamant about the extinction of a flaming forum and the prevention of a new flaming forum, especially when it has virtually no effect on these users. I suspect that the argument that anti-flamers have against flaming has less to do with flaming itself and more to do with an active dislike (or hate) for those that actually do the flaming. It's very sad that these anti-flamers can't practice a "live and let live" style, one which many of the anti-flamers so adamantly defend as a reason why a flaming forum is unnecessary.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:26 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
AAFitz wrote:Actually, I have answered this already, with my posts, so completely, that is is obvious you could not possibly have read them at all. Though technically Im not sure how much I actually do care...really I just posted why it was a bad idea, and how it would not help, and only that the premise of the original poster was faulty.

It results in flaming in other forums... am I correct in assuming that this is your answer? I have read all of your posts in this topic and I have yet to see another reason; therefore, I will assume this is your only answer.

With all due respect, I completely disagree. Further, if it did result in flaming in other forums, the moderators have recourse to punish people who flame in other forums (as they do now).

I just find it extremely fascinating that a small number of vocal users are so adamant about the extinction of a flaming forum and the prevention of a new flaming forum, especially when it has virtually no effect on these users. I suspect that the argument that anti-flamers have against flaming has less to do with flaming itself and more to do with an active dislike (or hate) for those that actually do the flaming. It's very sad that these anti-flamers can't practice a "live and let live" style, one which many of the anti-flamers so adamantly defend as a reason why a flaming forum is unnecessary.

I find it surprising that you find it sad that Im simply posting my opinion on the subject. All this is is a discussion of the pros and cons, and reasoning behind it. I hardly think my opinion will be used during any decision as to whether a flame wars, that was once deleted would ever be returned. I am very live and let live. I never called for flame wars to be removed, while I was in team CC, I even cautioned against it...bet you didnt know that....and if it came back, I would enjoy playing there like many others would.

However, this is a discussion about whether it would reduce tempers, let off steam and make the site a better place, and make people happier, and with that, I simply disagree on basic psychological grounds. In short, people blowing off steam only creates more steam...it creates conflict, it creates hatred and anger, and it will absolutely spill over into other forums.

Again though, this is just a discussion. The decision was made long ago, and you dont seem to respect the rights of so called anti-flamers to post their opinion, while at the same time posting that the site should have an entire forum thats more open...now that I find interesting.

Also, flame wars affected many people who did not want it around or agree with it. Anyone was a possible target of abuse, at any time, for anything. Just being subject to that, did affect them, whether they ever read one thread in flame wars or not.

xelabale · Post by **xelabale** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:51 am

Passive-aggressive is much worse than plain aggressive for many people fitz. Bear that in mind as you go through life.

F1fth · Post by **F1fth** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:12 am

Now, I didn't even like FW and had no qualms about seeing it gone (although I think a lot of people would be happier -- i.e. flamers and people tired of hearing flamers complain -- if it made a return, but it won't so that's neither here nor there). I just feel that the so-called "anti-flame" community perhaps may be a bit more self-motivated than they would like to imply. Who were the people getting teased in that forum anyway, I wonder?

Anyway, had a few words for Fitzy...

AAFitz wrote:However, this is a discussion about whether it would reduce tempers, let off steam and make the site a better place, and make people happier, and with that, I simply disagree on basic psychological grounds. In short, people blowing off steam only creates more steam...it creates conflict, it creates hatred and anger, and it will absolutely spill over into other forums.

Hmm... getting rid of flame wars created conflict, it created hatred and anger, and it certainly has spilled over into other forums. Kind of seems like the opposite of the intended effect, does it not?

Again though, this is just a discussion. The decision was made long ago, and you dont seem to respect the rights of so called anti-flamers to post their opinion, while at the same time posting that the site should have an entire forum thats more open...now that I find interesting.

Greekdog was COMPLETELY respectful of your opinion and was just posting his. Do you honestly him simply voicing his opinion as being disrespectful towards yours? Who's the one having a discussion and who's the one acting defensive here?

Also, flame wars affected many people who did not want it around or agree with it. Anyone was a possible target of abuse, at any time, for anything. Just being subject to that, did affect them, whether they ever read one thread in flame wars or not.

If something was said that was abusive, then the mods handled it. If a comment was not abusive enough to warrant any administrative action, then couldn't these "mature" folk just roll their eyes and chalk it up to the flamers being a bunch of... well, flamers (pun ambiguously intended). Well, they could... but every knows that in the real, mature world people's feelings are never hurt.

Oh and good luck on your crusade to rid the internet of immaturity, Fitz. Let me know how that one goes. :lol:

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:22 am

Fitz, I think you use this site so you cannot be hurt, where you can live in your own utopia. You cannot think everyone must act the same - people react differently to the same things, haven't you realised that? It some need to let out their anger on a site about the game on that site, why are we stopping them? No one else will care - hell, most people on the site don't care, but bottling things up is bad for the mind.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:44 am

xelabale wrote:Passive-aggressive is much worse than plain aggressive for many people fitz. Bear that in mind as you go through life.

Excellent advice, however off topic and irrelevant.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:15 am

F1fth wrote:Anyway, had a few words for Fitzy...

And I will respond to them in kind.

AAFitz wrote:However, this is a discussion about whether it would reduce tempers, let off steam and make the site a better place, and make people happier, and with that, I simply disagree on basic psychological grounds. In short, people blowing off steam only creates more steam...it creates conflict, it creates hatred and anger, and it will absolutely spill over into other forums.

F1fth wrote:Hmm... getting rid of flame wars created conflict, it created hatred and anger, and it certainly has spilled over into other forums. Kind of seems like the opposite of the intended effect, does it not?

Well, quite simply, you are wrong....there are far less arguments, far less personal attacks, and if you count them up, compared to the number that were in flame wars, its not even be a tiny percentage. Further, most of the people that are showing said anger, were the ones displaying it regularly in flame wars already...so suggesting it was only the deletion of it, that created the anger...is kind of backwards logic. Is there still anger, still hatred, and still conflict...sure....but once again....allowing people to simply let loose on these will NOT reduce it...it will amplify it. Its basic logic and common sense. If the problem is that people still are making inappropriate posts, then you deal with those...you dont just make a forum to make them magically appropriate...and you sure dont create a forum so people can fight even more, and expect for that to result in a more peaceful gaming site... its really beyond ludicrous. CC is infinitely better even if only because people arent allowed to lose their temper whenever they want. The fact that some still do, has nothing to do with flame wars being removed...its because of those people who cant control themselves...and certainly allowing them to lose their temper more often would not be helping them, and it sure as hell would not be making them happier and more socially acceptable.

aafitz wrote:Again though, this is just a discussion. The decision was made long ago, and you dont seem to respect the rights of so called anti-flamers to post their opinion, while at the same time posting that the site should have an entire forum that's more open...now that I find interesting.

F1fth wrote:Greekdog was COMPLETELY respectful of your opinion and was just posting his. Do you honestly him simply voicing his opinion as being disrespectful towards yours?

I was responding to his direct quote that he didnt understand why anti-flamers were posting their opinions.

greekgod wrote:It's very sad that these anti-flamers can't practice a "live and let live" style, one which many of the anti-flamers so adamantly defend as a reason why a flaming forum is unnecessary.

If that's COMPLETELY respectful of peoples opinion, than so be it, though he does seem to be suggesting that anti-flamers shouldn't post their opinions, and simply "live and let live". In any case, Im fully respectful of his opinions, while I happen to disagree with this one. As I said, differing opinions are vital to a forums success. I simply disagree with the need for flame wars.

aafitz wrote:Also, flame wars affected many people who did not want it around or agree with it. Anyone was a possible target of abuse, at any time, for anything. Just being subject to that, did affect them, whether they ever read one thread in flame wars or not.

F1fth wrote:If something was said that was abusive, then the mods handled it. If a comment was not abusive enough to warrant any administrative action, then couldn't these "mature" folk just roll their eyes and chalk it up to the flamers being a bunch of... well, flamers (pun ambiguously intended). Well, they could... but every knows that in the real, mature world people's feelings are never hurt.

The world also used to allow sexual harassment, bigotry, and many other forms of harassment in the work place and in society. The argument was that in the mature folk could just roll their eyes and chalk it up to the "harassers" being a bunch of well, "harassers" Thankfully, dedicated people spent their lives ending these common practices...and still work hard today to make the world better.

F1fth wrote:Oh and good luck on your crusade to rid the internet of immaturity, Fitz. Let me know how that one goes.

Im debating whether kids should be able to flame each other or not on a game where you click little armies against each other with intensity cubes, and take territories for bonuses and better Icons and medals as you play more and win more.

I think its safe to say I'm not on a crusade to rid the internet of immaturity.

If I embark on one ..ill be sure to pm you my updates as requested though. I had as much fun in flame wars as many did..more than most I might guess. I love immaturity, and have a great sense of humor. My first post as you may have missed was meant half as a joke, and I only continued to debat it because the xenable went off on it so passionately...and incorrectly.

One more time though... Im not fighting to get rid of flame wars. Its gone, and it probably isnt coming back. Im sure as hell not arrogant enough to think that something that I post here will matter to that anyways. Im simply posting my ideas on the subject, and countering some posts that I find to simply not be correct on a basic level which is this:

Allowing people to let off steam does not create less steam, it creates more.
The more people fight, the more they fight. They more they try to get along, the more they get along.

This is a game like any other. In any other game or sport, you cant just say whatever you want to anyone, whenever you want. There are rules and guidelines.

My personal belief is that the main reason for much of the conflict surrounding flame wars, was created by flame wars itself. Had the forum not been available from the beginning, much of the conflict would simply never have been there in the first place. Opening it again would only create more, which quite simply is obvious at this point.

I am sorry for those who enjoyed it, and miss it so dearly. I as I said had my fun there too, but I also know CC is better off without it...and more importantly, that a place to blow off steam, as I have said a silly amount of times, will not create less steam.

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:51 am

Fitz, I'm not disrespecting your opinion, I just don't agree with it and I tend to think you have no basis in making that opinion.

I don't believe you have a basis to make that opinion because: (1) You aren't forced to use a "let off steam" forum, (2) You can stay out of a "let off steam" forum, and (3) to the extent that "let off steam" comes out of that forum to another forum, the Mods can punish those activities.

I don't have a degree (or interest) in psychology, so I won't argue with you on that basis simply because I don't know what the psychological implications of letting off steam are via the internet.

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:16 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Fitz, I'm not disrespecting your opinion, I just don't agree with it and I tend to think you have no basis in making that opinion.

I don't believe you have a basis to make that opinion because: (1) You aren't forced to use a "let off steam" forum, (2) You can stay out of a "let off steam" forum, and (3) to the extent that "let off steam" comes out of that forum to another forum, the Mods can punish those activities.

I don't have a degree (or interest) in psychology, so I won't argue with you on that basis simply because I don't know what the psychological implications of letting off steam are via the internet.

well im guessing myself, but its based on a rather broad education.

You have missed what Ive said a little here though. I simply think CC is better off without flame wars. I am well equipped to make that opinion after 3 years here. But that is just an opinion.

The main point I was making was that the flame wars would not reduce the amount of steam in CC. It would only create more. That is a completely seperate argument whether or not flame wars is here or not. I honestly dont care if FW came back, and Id jump right in there...and Id probably spend my time the same way I did before...as a lightning rod for the worst flamers on CC.

You are partially incorrect though, because if flame wars was reinstated, while I could avoid it as you say, its very likely that my name would not. Further, I was also suggesting that people are better off without it anyways, and that was really my first post in this rather drawn out thread.

For the record, when I mentioned the disrespecting part, it was aimed only at that one line which I quoted. We dont seem to always seem eye to eye, but you really do present your posts respectfully from what Ive seen...if they get a little heated because you believe strongly...thats no big deal...it would be boring if you didnt....it was the one line you said about the anti-posters...and I knew it wasnt directed specifically at me anyways...I just called out on it is all.

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:48 pm

Interesting, I don't think I get heated at all.

In any event, my argument doesn't really matter all that much because flame wars does not exist. I simply don't understand the vehemence with which people hate flame wars.

Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players

Re: Place to let off steam about dice and players