Originally Posted by
Sindothyx
When an topic is heatedly debated and someone that generally does not care enters the fray with an open mind and hope to see other's positions, it can be both fruitful and disastrous. Misunderstandings abound, with the individual only worried about what others think and not what they may want. I've made my peace with not playing Vanilla if it's pure vanilla since I don't have time and don't want to play that, and I will try it if there are changes. This is me acting against my own self interest; to walk in another's shoes, to attempt to think objectively minus a few sarcastic jibes here and there and there such as my Ice Cream joke / locking levels and my making fun of Pure Vanilla by just auto attacking. When in direct conflict with another, there may be a sort of animosity when large amounts of text are written. Misunderstandings. Indeed, even superfluous text (and or typos / improper deletion of a section to form an nonsensical sentence) or repeating oneself if a response is long enough. Though I'd like to write here that I respect Cronoos' opinion and my opinions are merely my own. That said... it is...
"Debating Debate"
...definitely hard to respond to someone essentially saying respond to this and don't dismiss it, but don't respond to it because that would be arguing the debate (from how I read it). Especially -- and I target this section -- because your prime examples support both of our thoughts and I was never against something you said I have yet to refute. I even said that I was personally for it by responding "Like I said, I'd be all over a World of Warcraft remake. Which is essentially what these proposed changes will make it, and not a Vanilla server." (additional quotes at the bottom). Subject to one's definition of Vanilla and "Remake" (which one could say remaster as you add new graphics and QoL -- that is, not the original experience and not counting the new code they have to write and adaptations to the engine; they can't just "flip the switch" as our only source said at 2016's Blizzcon). With me further noting that they had to remake a lot of the code (since they mentioned such things as losing the code for our main bag when they had a interview about it), so it would be that regardless of what we do. I will admit my own fault in not being more clear and allowing my zeal for other people to overshadow my point in that I -- as much as I tried to say I agreed with him personally -- was not entirely clear when it came to that.
"My take on your words and the situations"
My take on the situation of Spiritual Successors? It is not practical to rely on making the perfect spiritual successor. But I agree with the premise of it being possible and would like to see it done. Yet still, hold firm that -- the big theme being differing opinions -- there are people who will feel screwed over. People who deserve what they want far more than I do. You yourself may be someone who deserves what they want more than I do, as all I did was read and note a massive amount of the old "We want Legacy" threads and support nost friends that kept on talking about it.
"Debating Debate"
Aside from that, I'll respect the way you read what I wrote. Though from my viewpoint I responded appropriately to what you offered in the post I quoted (and I will quote your other posts later to respond to them again). Though I'm not entirely sure if you're responding to the right person. In fact, you mentioned that I've made "no argument" in your second paragraph, and that there is no argument in the third; If true (and I believe I did to the best of my ability) this is because I originally made no arguments against the second and why would I waste time on the third if it can't be refuted (I'm sure you've spoken with someone who used absolutes and know the feeling regarding this; it also shows why I'm curious as to why you quoted me as I made no argument to the contrary)? Or maybe I should have said, "Hey! You made a remark that I was never against in my writing or stated something obvious just to have something to say! Congratulations." But why did you make it? What is it in response to?
Let's break them down, despite being unsure if you want me to state such or if you don't since it isn't what you want (Not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm seriously confused)?
"Debating Debate and Responding to what you wrote, your ideas."
Paragraph one of the above: What is there to refute in your quote compared to what I have maintained in my writings? The only thing you mentioned is that I am "speaking for others" when expressing my opinion. I have said that I prefer a server that has a ton of of QoL improvements. But that I will not usurp those that did fight for the vanilla experience. Thinking you were referring this -- the only logical thing to think in my position -- I put up a method of my thought process. Yet somehow that is construed as debating the debate. Or a few sentences or paragraphs here or there are paid attention to to come to such a conclusion.
It's a hard sell to argue that there is no debate about what you wrote and then complain there is no debate about what you wrote. Likewise, it's difficult to believe that you'd make the "villain" out of someone saying "What gives you the right to have opinions and speak for them?" Just because you're passionate about something. And then follow suit that everyone has opinions, as well as everyone having given opinions. With no use of "everyone" ever being used on my part. It also isn't fair to remark on how someone debates, then complain that they're deconstructing your words with their own viewpoints, precedence and so on.
I responded (to the best of my ability and understanding) to your first sentence. Your second sentence. And your last paragraph. If you disagree with this, then I'm sure there are others that will agree with you on that. Because, hey, the whole point was that everyone has different opinions, was it not? Apparently I have to write "I have a problem with this prior to writing about the problem I had, or have been describing this whole time. Perhaps it is my side note that I felt your statement was contradictory that made it feel this way. Maybe I need to reread what I wrote, maybe my articulation was off. You know, I'll blame my own lack of comprehension and realization as to your intent (Or presumed intent). Though when writing that, I was certain I already addressed the flaws.
Honestly, from my viewpoint, nothing you have offered me in the last two posts has been about the topic at hand, or at the very least had no reason to be directed at me since we've no personal disagreements. Though I recognize your words, your thoughts and have noted; the situation whereby they contradict each other is irrelevant when your message of what you want -- and your need to write me personally about it -- is what should be heard. Well, I feel as though I should say that I hear it and simply nod my head. I can't say you're wrong, as you want what you want. And I hope you get it -- just like I hope those who want pure Vanilla get it. I'd play your version over pure Vanilla. As I stated before, I can't stand the old flight master system and having to pick nearby destinations over and over again.
"Synopsis and the direct problem I have with your post"
You essentially do not agree (from what I've gathered) that I feel people that worked for vanilla would be upset or screwed over. It is, after all, based on your own words that I draw this conclusion. My previous assertions were "Let us not fool ourselves"; this is a statement that holds true and was not refuted by you. You only promoted it with your assertions of differing ideologies and stating that there is not a single mind most recently. Yet then said that I haven't refuted something that I never aimed to refute? That changes can be made and still hold to the "spirit". The problem I have -- and here, I've wrote it this time -- was that this goes against everyone having an opinion against that. I made mention that you literally refuted yourself. Perhaps poorly articulated on my part. Suddenly, you're speaking for "Purists" now, as you claimed I am in that purists think changes can be good. How can I argue or even hold a conversation with you when you are both agreeing with me and presenting me with something to refute that I don't recall personally delving into? Can something hold onto the spirit of something? Sure. Does everyone think that? You yourself said no after the fact. And the fine line is nearly impossible to find to the point where, yes, my original point, people will be upset. The only way to delve into the matter is to discuss exactly what you wrote, and my own reasoning. Which somehow isn't a part of the debate, when there isn't a clear topic at hand as I'm on your side, yet you're against yourself and me.
I'm not dismissing you. I hear you.
I don't think taking the time to write all of that is dismissing you. Simply saying you refute yourself and moving on would have been dismissing you. My own thoughts on the matter are just as passionate -- but not for myself. I want that experience that people remember for the people -- not just potentially the bad, but just the magic of first logging into Vanilla or TBC and seeing the world. Exploring. Meeting friends. This is something I remember the most and deviations from that path, I admit, may insert a worry that people would not get the same experience. I've already experienced it. Made those friends. But others have not. And many that wanted Vanilla miss that.
With regards to the final paragraph, I very much stated earlier that if the majority that fought for it believed in the changes, the more power to them. Believe to have reiterated such. Even noted that the majority or the most vocal brings about the most evidence, rather than relying on what "we think" or what "I feel". This is the difference between an educated guess and a guess (not to imply superiority in education, but rather to note the quality of opinions as I'm sure you've heard this term before). The former can be wrong the latter right. We already established that everyone has a viewpoint. You did so to your writing's own detriment. What is unrealistic is assumptions without cause or basis. Or present a question or statement that someone wasn't against in the first place. What can you write beyond stating "This is irrefutable" and "You haven't refuted this"? Is it personal want and logic? I'd like to see an the aforementioned "educated opinion" in statements.
"The Problem with Arguments in a scholastic writing or debate."
That is my problem with your writing. There is nothing to debate as I don't know where you're coming from in that I don't know why you quoted me if you read my previous statements. From my own comprehension (and without reading posts that I wasn't quoted in since you're apparently responding to my past comments in the thread) You're just saying things for the sake of it without substance. The problem with "arguments" is that they're rhetoric without a foundation. Without precedence and without gathered data from years on the topic at hand. I could easily make an argument "We'd be healthier if the sky was red." Well? Someone might be color blind. Colors are perceived different. How can we refute that? We only have scientific evidence, general understanding based on what we have and what we know, etc. Will the sun still give the same light? With our atmosphere have a difference if something really was different? Arguments must have questions or precedence presented be be validated. They cannot be used as an end-all, be all. At least when it comes to topics where you quoted myself. Perhaps out of passion. Perhaps to get the message across. Maybe you just don't care but are just stating arguments for the sake of it. I don't know. Though I'll make note of what you sent me in this thread and reply to such in an attempt to talk about what I think you've been trying to talk about? Honestly, if someone presents a table of events and a conclusion, and another states an argument while empty handed, there is really nothing to refute. Even something incredibly small would have challenged my table that -- while we know those chains of events took place -- a reader without knowledge would not -- and made me think, "Okay, that's an acceptable theory." No argument or debate needed. But I only saw contradictions those arguments you said you're using. I believe in the spiritual successor theory based on personal want, but not from a moral or scholastic point of view. I also want to know what ingredients are in my food and not, "it's fine, people have been eating it for years. You can't argue with that!" -- An argument or statement in itself that gives specific example we can relate to and understand.
"The only thing I see from you in my history are small posts: Done for posterity"
-- of Which I responded with what I wrote above. "Let's not fool ourselves" in saying we won't screw people over as people have different thoughts on the matter. I didn't say "all people", make note. Is the premise of your entire argument -- even the last words you wrote -- wrong? People don't have personal thoughts? How is that -- and the fine line it takes to make changes perfect to honor the spirit -- not an adequate response? Perhaps not to you. But that's perfectly okay.
-First quote: Personal opinions -- we all have them. Addressed above.
-Second quote: No personal arguments here. I noted that I could lock my level 60 now and get the current QoL changes now. While true, it was meant to be sarcastic -- I also wrote something later on that I only auto attack to get the full experience. Graphics are important to me. I didn't say anything to the contrary.
-Third -- Actually agreed with you when I responded. Not sure why you said I didn't refute. Said that I totally want that experience. If they can perfect it -- very hard to do -- then it would be great for me. But still doesn't change the fact that people have different opinions and some would feel screwed. Which you agreed to with his recent statements. Thus, my overall confusion.
If you'd like to bring a topic to discuss that we disagree on -- and not one where you both disagree and disagree with me and yourself, and I agree with you on a personal level, then I'm all for it. I do not disagree with your wants or deny that you want them. Or the fact that many people want changes. I simply infer that there are two sides of every coin, and I worry for those that -did- post "We want vanilla" and actually wanted Vanilla. This is their last chance to get something official like that.
Recent Blue Posts
Limited PvP -> PvE Free Character Transfers
Feedback: Hunter Updates
Dragonflight Season 4 - Awakened Raid Rotation and Rewards
MMO-Champion
Recent Forum Posts
Reply With Quote
