New Group Fly suggestion

[ZacKing]

40 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Please show me where I said, "you are morally wrong for not agreeing with me" Hell, show me where I suggested that?

 

Sure.  Here you go.  "If I wasn't a casual gamer with limited time that would be more feasible.... but seeing as how the devs have already provided a solution, would it not morally fall on the other players who don't want it to deal with it? "

That's you inferring that others are "morally wrong" for not using Null.  That's you inferring you're morally right simply because Null exists.   Your subsequent replies in the thread provide further insight into your belief that you're in the right.  Several people called you out on that, not just one or two people.  

 

42 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Please connect the dots on how I was hindering the team and not simply 1 guy.

 

Come on man, you know better.  If you're playing alone, you're soloing.  If you're on a team with others - whether that's one person or a full team or a full league - you're teaming.  It stops becoming all about you once you join a team.

 

44 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Yup that what happened. Except I used it for the majority of the TF up to that point. Details matter. Maybe not to you, but several people have conceded that point that it was highly suspect to wait that long to say something. 

 

The team leads patience probably wore out by that time.  Regardless, you didn't follow a very simple request from a team leader and you go booted. 

 

45 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Having a disagreement with a team lead is not the equivalent of the team itself, which is the point when I am being accused of going against the team (i.e more than one person) but I think you know that. 

 

Again, if you are teaming with 1 other person, you're on a team.  Only one person on the team has the star and that's the team lead, so its their call.

 

49 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

It's not usually an issue, this is the first time I've ran into it, so making an extra effort for something that likely won't come up again isn't worth it imo. 

 

Now you know it can be an issue, so perhaps mention it before starting a TF next time. 

[Gravitus]

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

Sure.  Here you go.  "If I wasn't a casual gamer with limited time that would be more feasible.... but seeing as how the devs have already provided a solution, would it not morally fall on the other players who don't want it to deal with it? "

That's you inferring that others are "morally wrong" for not using Null.  That's you inferring you're morally right simply because Null exists.   Your subsequent replies in the thread provide further insight into your belief that you're in the right.  Several people called you out on that, not just one or two people.  

So that's a question, not an assertion of anything. See how it ends in a question mark?

 

I am asking someone to make a case why its ok for to take an adverse action against someone when a solution exists that gives everyone what they want. Yes, I have the position that I was wronged, and an immoral action was taken against me. But I don't know, maybe someone will present a good argument showing me the error of my ways, which is why I didn't just assert that was the case. Your assertion that I'm just out here dry saying "People who don't use Null are immoral" is a gross misinterpretation of what was actually said...context is king.  

 

Simply using or not using Null has no morality attached to it in of itself. It's my belief that when you have the solution to give all parties what they want, and you forgo that option and instead take an adverse action against someone for your shortcomings is when it becomes immoral. That's a far cry from calling the people on the thread immoral which is what you are insinuating.

 

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Come on man, you know better.  If you're playing alone, you're soloing.  If you're on a team with others - whether that's one person or a full team or a full league - you're teaming.  It stops becoming all about you once you join a team.

 

Come on nothing...it was a disagreement between me and a SINGLE individual. Those are the facts. You've failed to connect the dots on how the team was hindered. 

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

The team leads patience probably wore out by that time.  Regardless, you didn't follow a very simple request from a team leader and you go booted.

Yup, and I gave him a bad review and complained in a public forum. What's your point? 

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Again, if you are teaming with 1 other person, you're on a team.  Only one person on the team has the star and that's the team lead, so its their call.

Never denied they had power to take action. Having the power to take action sure don't mean right though, does it? 

 

3 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Now you know it can be an issue, so perhaps mention it before starting a TF next time. 

Funny you say that, I actually did a few days ago and someone said "cool story bro" I think I'll just play the odds and if it happens again, I won't bitch on the forums anymore about it. The best I can take away from this is at least it sparked discussion about GF in a huge way that maybe the devs will take another look at it again. 

[Rudra]

3 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

But I don't know, maybe someone will present a good argument showing me the error of my ways, which is why I didn't just assert that was the case.

You were on a TF and Null the Gull won't talk to anyone on a TF. So if a request is made to not use Group Fly, and you already stated you don't always use Group Fly, then since that person can't go talk to Null the GUll until after the TF is over or they quit the TF to go talk to him, courtesy says turn off Group Fly.

[Gravitus]

2 minutes ago, Rudra said:

You were on a TF and Null the Gull won't talk to anyone on a TF. So if a request is made to not use Group Fly, and you already stated you don't always use Group Fly, then since that person can't go talk to Null the GUll until after the TF is over or they quit the TF to go talk to him, courtesy says turn off Group Fly.

That's a very poor argument.

[Rudra]

2 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

That's a very poor argument.

Then your stance is that the team needs to cater to you? As a team member, not the team lead?

 

Edit: It doesn't matter if a single member of the team asked or if everyone on the team other than you asks, when a team starts to have friction with itself, it needs to be resolved. Either by compliance with the request or by finding another resolution. If 1 person on the team speaks up requesting a cessation of your activity and you refuse, especially when that 1 person is the team leader, then it is all on you. It doesn't matter how long that person kept quiet trying to not rock the boat.

 

Edited September 27 by Rudra

[Gravitus]

10 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Then your stance is that the team needs to cater to you? As a team member, not the team lead?

What team? You mean the 1 guy? You use the word cater but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

It was a 1v1 disagreement. You keep blowing it up to more than it was. Stay on topic. 

 

2 people had a disagreement...I made my points and the best you can come up with is "someone had a star" and "you don't always use the power" right...I don't use GF on closed maps like caves because I'm not a monster. Still feel good about trying to use that as a point of contention? 

Edited September 27 by Gravitus

[Excraft]

22 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

So that's a question, not an assertion of anything. See how it ends in a question mark?

 

See how you used the word "morally" in your question?  That's inferring morality.  Words have meaning.  Here you are again inferring morality in the situation.

 

22 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Yes, I have the position that I was wronged, and an immoral action was taken against me.

 

You're inferring that the team lead was morally wrong to kick you.

 

22 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Come on nothing...it was a disagreement between me and a SINGLE individual. Those are the facts. You've failed to connect the dots on how the team was hindered. 

 

Were you on a team with that single individual?  Yes.  Were you hindering them?  Yes.  That's why they asked you to stop using GF.  Guess what that means?  You were on a team and you were hindering them.

 

13 minutes ago, Rudra said:

It doesn't matter if a single member of the team asked or if everyone on the team other than you asks, when a team starts to have friction with itself, it needs to be resolved. Either by compliance with the request or by finding another resolution. If 1 person on the team speaks up requesting a cessation of your activity and you refuse, especially when that 1 person is the team leader, then it is all on you.

 

Amen!

 

Edited September 27 by Excraft

[Rudra]

9 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

19 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Then your stance is that the team needs to cater to you? As a team member, not the team lead?

What team? You mean the 1 guy? You use the word cater but it doesn't mean what you think it does.

It was a 1v1 disagreement. You keep blowing it up to more than it was. Stay on topic. 

Were you on a team? Yes.

Did any member of that team make a request that you stop doing something you were doing? Yes. (In point of fact, the team leader made the request.)

 

It does not matter how many or few members of that team ask you to stop doing something you are doing. It can be 1 of them, it can be all of them. It does not matter. Especially if that 1 person is the team leader. If part of the team is having issues with something you are doing, it doesn't matter if it is using a power or the things you are saying or anything else, the team has issues with what is being done. And that issue needs to be resolved. Either by finding a way for the power to benefit the team without causing issue for that person(s), by finding a way to not affect that person(s) in the undesired way, or by cessation of activity. (Edit: Or by the rest of the team agreeing with you and saying the requester is out of line, enabling you to continue.)

 

Edited September 27 by Rudra

[Gravitus]

6 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

See how you used the word "morally" in your question?  That's inferring morality.  Words have meaning.  Here you are again inferring morality in the situation.

See how you ignored the context of everything else I said? 

 

6 minutes ago, Excraft said:

You're inferring that the team lead was morally wrong to kick you.

I sure am... the claim/inference against me was I was calling people for disagreeing with me on the thread immoral. Let's try to keep up, shall we? 

 

6 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Were you on a team with that single individual?  Yes.  Were you hindering them?  Yes.  That's why they asked you to stop using GF.  Guess what that means? 

You were on a team and you were hindering them.

Semantics don't work on people with an IQ over 76. It would be more accurate to say a team member and myself had a disagreement instead of saying the team. When you say "team" that comes with baggage and the optics that I'm going against several people and that I placed myself over the collective which is not what happened. 

6 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

 

 

 

 

[Gravitus]

15 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Were you on a team? Yes.

Did any member of that team make a request that you stop doing something you were doing? Yes. (In point of fact, the team leader made the request.)

 

It does not matter how many or few members of that team ask you to stop doing something you are doing. It can be 1 of them, it can be all of them. It does not matter. Especially if that 1 person is the team leader. 

 

I disagree, I don't think a single individual that I'm in violent disagreement with, obligates me to automatically yield. Even if we are on the same team.

 

If a team lead tells me to do something that I think is a bad call, I'll ignore that request as well. Most of the time however, that's not the case. I got plenty of team-oriented badges to show for it. 

 

If more than one person asks, then I'll likely play ball even if it's a bad call OR if I see its really making something bad happen, I'll also cease whatever action. 

 

If we can't agree on what I consider fundamentals it may just be time to agree to disagree. 

Edited September 27 by Gravitus

[Rudra]

12 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

I disagree, I don't think a single individual that I'm in violent disagreement with, obligates me to automatically yield. Even if we are on the same team.

 

If a team lead tells me to do something that I think is a bad call, I'll ignore that request as well. Most of the time however, that's not the case. I got plenty of team-oriented badges to show for it. 

 

If more than one person asks, then I'll likely play ball even if it's a bad call OR if I see its really making something bad happen, I'll also cease whatever action. 

 

If we can't agree on what I consider fundamentals it may just be time to agree to disagree. 

Your insistence is baffling. Though I do agree it is pointless to continue this.

[Excraft]

25 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

See how you ignored the context of everything else I said? 

 

I didn't ignore anything.  You are the one who keeps trying to inject morality into the situation and making the inference that someone kicking you from a team after you failed to oblige a very simple request makes them morally wrong by continuing to use the word "moral". 

 

27 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Semantics don't work on people with an IQ over 76.  When you say "team" that comes with baggage and the optics that I'm going against several people and that I placed myself over the collective which is not what happened. 

 

Semantics has nothing to do with it.  Were there other person(s) with you?  Yes.  That makes you on a team.  The word "team" means "not just you alone".   Two or more people working together on the same thing is a team.  Or are you suggesting that teams only mean a full team of 8 or a full league now? 

 

21 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

I disagree, I don't think a single individual that I'm in violent disagreement with, obligates me to automatically yield.

 

So the team leader should have automatically yielded to you? 

 

16 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Your insistence is baffling. Though I do agree it is pointless to continue this.

 

It's like others said in the other thread.... it's "main character" and "victim" complexes.

[Psyonico]

I love how we now have multiple threads arguing over who was in the wrong in this one instance.

[Gravitus]

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

I didn't ignore anything.  You are the one who keeps trying to inject morality into the situation and making the inference that someone kicking you from a team after you failed to oblige a very simple request makes them morally wrong by continuing to use the word "moral". 

The claim was I was accusing those who did not agree with me on this thread as immoral, which wasn't the case. I did however accuse the team lead of being immoral in this instance. You are conflating two diffrent things entirely. It would be helpful if you knew where the goal posts were in this argument you're making. 

 

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Semantics has nothing to do with it.  Were there other person(s) with you?  Yes.  That makes you on a team.  The word "team" means "not just you alone".   Two or more people working together on the same thing is a team.  Or are you suggesting that teams only mean a full team of 8 or a full league now?

Semantics has everything to do with it. look up the definition of team. It's more than a single person. Me being on a team is independent of me being in opposition to the team vs a single team member. The fact you are unable to make this distinction is telling. 

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

So, the team leader should have automatically yielded to you? 

I didn't give a command; therefore no one is capable of yielding or not yielding to me. 

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

It's like others said in the other thread.... it's "main character" and "victim" complexes.

Ad hom all you want, it won't turn your weak argument into a strong one. 

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

 

41 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

 

Edited September 27 by Gravitus

[Rudra]

20 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

I didn't give a command; therefore no one is capable of yielding or not yielding to me. 

Holy hells! A request was made of you, a request made by the team leader. The person that actually has control of the team and gets to dictate what does or does not get to happen. That is a demand that the team, or even just the team leader since you insist on semantics, yield to you and your playstyle despite you being on the team at the sufferance/whim of the team leader. Give it a rest already! The only reason why this derailment has gone on for so long is because of your insistence that you are in the right and the team leader was morally wrong, per your words on that other thread which I went back and read, rather than saying "I disagree, I see everyone else disagrees with me, so I'm just going to move on".

 

Ending this derailment is as simple as what you and I agreed to do until you made this ridiculous comment. Just leave it at everyone disagrees and move on.

[Excraft]

35 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

The claim was I was accusing those who did not agree with me on this thread as immoral, which wasn't the case. I did however accuse the team lead of being immoral in this instance. You are conflating two diffrent things entirely. It would be helpful if you knew where the goal posts were in this argument you're making. 

 

Correct.  You said the team leader was "immoral" for booting you because they didn't agree with letting you continue to use group fly.  This, along with other posts you have made trying to inject morality into the discussion, is where people are saying you're accusing anyone who disagrees with you as "immoral" just as you are saying that team lead is immoral.  This is a circular argument since you just don't see where others are coming from.

 

35 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Semantics has everything to do with it. look up the definition of team. It's more than a single person. Me being on a team is independent of me being in opposition to the team vs a single team member. The fact you are unable to make this distinction is telling. 

 

FFS just read what you wrote here and see how many times you used the word "team".  You're trying to say that the "team" = "everyone who agrees with me" now.  Do you not understand the definition of the word team?  The fact that you are unable to make the distinction that once you agree to join a team - whether that's with another single player or with more than one other player -you aren't solo anymore.  You are on a team.  It does not matter if you have a problem with an individual on the team or several members.  You're on a team and should adjust your game play accordingly. 

 

35 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

I didn't give a command; therefore no one is capable of yielding or not yielding to me. 

 

Actually, you did.  You said you wouldn't comply with the request of the team lead.  There's no distinction there. 

 

35 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Ad hom all you want, it won't turn your weak argument into a strong one. 

 

Says the person saying people are of lower IQ....

 

1 hour ago, Gravitus said:

Semantics don't work on people with an IQ over 76.

 

So after following your posts over the last few days on this topic, it's more than abundantly clear who the problem was on that team.  Good day to you.  Keep doing you and go right on ranting about it when others kick you from their teams.

Edited September 27 by Excraft

[Gravitus]

16 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Holy hells! A request was made of you, a request made by the team leader. The person that actually has control of the team and gets to dictate what does or does not get to happen. That is a demand that the team, or even just the team leader since you insist on semantics, yield to you and your playstyle despite you being on the team at the sufferance/whim of the team leader.

Yielding is a verb, I'm literally taking no action, therefore no one can yield to me. That would be like you putting a gun to my head and saying, "if you don't give me $100 I'm going to shoot you" If I don't give you the $100 that doesn't mean I committed suicide. That's basically what you're saying. 

 

16 minutes ago, Rudra said:

 

 

 

 

Give it a rest already!

Take your own advice? I mean I ended my conversation with you, you chose to intervene in a conversation I was having with someone else. 

16 minutes ago, Rudra said:

The only reason why this derailment has gone on for so long is because of your insistence that you are in the right and the team leader was morally wrong, per your words on that other thread which I went back and read, rather than saying "I disagree, I see everyone else disagrees with me, so I'm just going to move on".

And I also said I was going to post again after. Do you just stop reading posts when it suits you? 

 

16 minutes ago, Rudra said:

 

Ending this derailment is as simple as what you and I agreed to do until you made this ridiculous comment. Just leave it at everyone disagrees and move on.

No one forced you to respond. Log Off or Block 

 

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Gravitus said:

Log Off or Block 

Accepted. Welcome to ignore.

[Gravitus]

19 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

Correct.  You said the team leader was "immoral" for booting you because they didn't agree with letting you continue to use group fly.  This, along with other posts you have made trying to inject morality into the discussion, is where people are saying you're accusing anyone who disagrees with you as "immoral" just as you are saying that team lead is immoral.  This is a circular argument since you just don't see where others are coming from.

So by saying the team lead committed an immoral act somehow translates into me calling people who disagree with me immoral? How did you come up with that? 

 

19 minutes ago, Excraft said:

FFS just read what you wrote here and see how many times you used the word "team".  You're trying to say that the "team" = "everyone who agrees with me" now.  Do you not understand the definition of the word team?  The fact that you are unable to make the distinction that once you agree to join a team - whether that's with another single player or with more than one other player -you aren't solo anymore.  You are on a team.  It does not matter if you have a problem with an individual on the team or several members.  You're on a team and should adjust your game play accordingly.

I guess you missed the part where I said being on a team is INDEPENDENT (since bolded words might help you as well) from actually being in opposition to the team. You're hung up on the word team instead of what's actually being explained to you. 

19 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Actually, you did.  You said you wouldn't comply with the request of the team lead.  There's no distinction there.

YIELD definition 

give way to arguments, demands, or pressure.

 

The word you're looking for is resisted. If I resist something, it doesn't mean I then made the person who was trying to get me to yield, yield. 

 

19 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Says the person saying people are of lower IQ....

All I did was tell you semantics work on dumb people. Did I call you or anyone else on the thread dumb? 

 

19 minutes ago, Excraft said:

So after following your posts over the last few days on this topic, it's more than abundantly clear who the problem was on that team.  Good day to you.  Keep doing you and go right on ranting about it when others kick you from their teams.

Cool story bro, don't let the door hit you on the way out. 

 

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, Gravitus said:

So by saying the team lead committed an immoral act somehow translates into me calling people who disagree with me immoral? How did you come up with that? 

Well, yeah.  "The team lead disagreed with me and them kicking me was an immoral act".  The team lead disagreed with you, and you called them kicking you immoral.  You think people who disagree with you are immoral.  Fairly straightforward.  But you go right ahead and try and backpedal some more.

 

2 hours ago, Excraft said:

So after following your posts over the last few days on this topic, it's more than abundantly clear who the problem was on that team. 

 

That much is crystal clear.  It's even more abundantly clear why people wanted an option to turn off group fly affecting them in the first place.  Some people just gotta be narcissists about it. 

Edited September 27 by ZacKing

[GM_GooglyMoogly]

All right.  I think that all of these group fly discussions involving Gravitus have run their course.  Let's talk about something else.

 

We don't have to always agree, but let's not be disagreeable about it.