Pixe Sukola's Feed

i shockingly made the same mistake at same age and lost my 20s because of it

but i didnt need people to encourage me to go on in my self-pitty, i needed people to kick my ass

cant give in on things over a temper tantrum, it will actually hurt the person more as it will only encourage more temper tantrums. i like the fact you care about people, and overall i actually do like kernzy. so i dont say this with the anger about him i say with other i've argued with.

the votes have to be for the right reason. its not about liking or hating people, its about the rules

that said, noone can ever fault an abstain. i would take issue with purposely voting wrong due to personal feelings, but just unvoting is of course well within everyone's rights

Pixe Sukola thanked this post

Pixe Sukola, datagod liked this post

oh i also respect cancels/ self-reject. not faulting you at all in your decisions here. i think you've given in as much as you ethically can

Pixe Sukola thanked this post

datagod liked this post

Originally Posted by Snowflake

the votes have to be for the right reason. its not about liking or hating people, its about the rules

that said, noone can ever fault an abstain. i would take issue with purposely voting wrong due to personal feelings, but just unvoting is of course well within everyone's rights

Absolutely agree with you. If that was up to me I would cancel it but yes, ultimately the people decides based on the record itself. Thats why in parenthesis I said to vote however you liked and I wanted to let people know that Im abstaining so not to affect one way or the other.

datagod liked this post

Hehe, two wrongs don't make a right & there's two wrongs above this post (not talking about the obsessions of younger males).

Kernzy has an opinion that I share: the rules indicate a complete lap. I wrote the rule in this instance & I know what I intended. However, TGSAP is broken so I'm not going to fight it 'cause it is easier to roll with the change which leaves a gap for even more tracks & even more "dilution" which I know will just be lurved in some quarters. :P

Suggesting that Kernzy's opinion is in any way similar to that of "obsessive testosterone" is wildly wrong.

TGSAP is broken & it gets obvious because of people wrongly trying to influence other people's voting.

Pixe Sukola, kernzyp thanked this post

kernzyp liked this post

Originally Posted by Barthax

Hehe, two wrongs don't make a right & there's two wrongs above this post (not talking about the obsessions of younger males).

Kernzy has an opinion that I share: the rules indicate a complete lap. I wrote the rule in this instance & I know what I intended. However, TGSAP is broken so I'm not going to fight it 'cause it is easier to roll with the change which leaves a gap for even more tracks & even more "dilution" which I know will just be lurved in some quarters. :P

Suggesting that Kernzy's opinion is in any way similar to that of "obsessive testosterone" is wildly wrong.

TGSAP is broken & it gets obvious because of people wrongly trying to influence other people's voting.

i thought i read the original dispute, did i miss it, or did you just not say it there, that as the rule creator your intended what kenrzy interperted? i feel that would make a major difference. while a rule creator cant just retroactively change their rules, not to mention we've had cases of someone claim to write rules when they werent the author, i think your case is different in that you're generally trusted. I would think you stating you created the rules as well as what you meant, while not a proof, would be taken as a serious piece of evidence. the evidence would be even more concrete if there were anecdotes/examples of pretgsap cases showing the interpertation

Pixe Sukola thanked this post

Marcade liked this post

Originally Posted by Barthax

Kernzy has an opinion that I share: the rules indicate a complete lap. I wrote the rule in this instance & I know what I intended. However, TGSAP is broken so I'm not going to fight it 'cause it is easier to roll with the change which leaves a gap for even more tracks & even more "dilution" which I know will just be lurved in some quarters. :P

MARCADE REPLY: And the last thing we want is more dilution, in an already diluted game. Also can we clear this up, on the creation standpoint? Because @RaGe claimed he did as well. Was it an collaborated effort? UPDATE: Never mind that last statement. I misread RaGe's original post#2 in the dispute...

BARTHAX said: "Suggesting that Kernzy's opinion is in any way similar to that of "obsessive testosterone" is wildly wrong."

MARCADE REPLY: I totally agree with that...That has nothing to do with video games, nor racing on Gran Turismo 5.

BARTHAX said: TGSAP is broken & it gets obvious because of people wrongly trying to influence other people's voting.

MARCADE REPLY: It will always be broken... However, there is no "voting influence" on the dispute. Just those, like myself and others expressing facts, opinion, and knowledge of the game. Only the commissioner can decide if the dispute is valid or not, based on the amount of yes votes, to TRIGGER any review, then take possible action on it. To add, the only member that I have seen so far that ACTUALLY TELLS AND/OR DIRECTS others on HOW to vote, is JJT. (Several occasions in pending adjudication and on disputes.)

Pixe Sukola thanked this post

Snowflake liked this post

Originally Posted by Barthax

Kernzy has an opinion that I share: the rules indicate a complete lap.

And that is fine, but that opinion has gotten out of control now. He is making comments in completely different disputes suggesting that I'm a cheater and only care about rules when it suits me, and Im really concern about him.

datagod liked this post

Just trying to coallesce the responses (Marc has already amended his - which I'm quoting the amendment but am also covering the facts).

Originally Posted by Snowflake

i thought i read the original dispute, did i miss it, or did you just not say it there, that as the rule creator your intended what kenrzy interperted? i feel that would make a major difference. while a rule creator cant just retroactively change their rules, not to mention we've had cases of someone claim to write rules when they werent the author, i think your case is different in that you're generally trusted. I would think you stating you created the rules as well as what you meant, while not a proof, would be taken as a serious piece of evidence. the evidence would be even more concrete if there were anecdotes/examples of pretgsap cases showing the interpertation

Originally Posted by Marcade

MARCADE REPLY: And the last thing we want is more dilution, in an already diluted game. Also can we clear this up, on the creation standpoint? Because @RaGe claimed he did as well. Was it an collaborated effort? UPDATE: Never mind that last statement. I misread RaGe's original post#2 in the dispute...

BARTHAX said: "Suggesting that Kernzy's opinion is in any way similar to that of "obsessive testosterone" is wildly wrong."

MARCADE REPLY: I totally agree with that...That has nothing to do with video games, nor racing on Gran Turismo 5.

BARTHAX said: TGSAP is broken & it gets obvious because of people wrongly trying to influence other people's voting.

MARCADE REPLY: It will always be broken... However, there is no "voting influence" on the dispute. Just those, like myself and others expressing facts, opinion, and knowledge of the game. Only the commissioner can decide if the dispute is valid or not, based on the amount of yes votes, to TRIGGER any review, then take possible action on it. To add, the only member that I have seen so far that ACTUALLY TELLS AND/OR DIRECTS others on HOW to vote, is JJT. (Several occasions in pending adjudication and on disputes.)

Originally Posted by Pixe Sukola

And that is fine, but that opinion has gotten out of control now. He is making comments in completely different disputes suggesting that I'm a cheater and only care about rules when it suits me, and Im really concern about him.

Factual content:

Original track creation: https://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/151883-PlayStation-3-Gran-Turismo-5-Fuji-Speedway-F

Derivative track created with Shaun's disputed and Daniel's in-progress submissions:

Other factual items:

I voted a reject on Shaun's submission and I voted Yes on the dispute.

Opinions:

A complete lap, in my opinion, requires the entire course.

As of the dispute I recognise the wording is now and the majority interpretation is other than my original intent.

I've had too many long stupid fruitless arguments over large quantities of misunderstandings that continuing more is a long stupid fruitless exercise.

Voting influence:

Daniel's wall post attempts to influence voting in exactly the same way as Shaun's original when he requested the reject votes on his own submission. The difference is context: Shaun's was on-point in the thread of the submission, Daniel's is a wall. One is aimed at those viewing just the submission, the other is aimed at influencing site-wide.

Being a cheat:

Daniel stated in his own submission how he is cheating. Kernzy does not accuse anybody of cheating in the quoted reference. The only person mentioning cheating is Daniel.

Any continuance:

Not interested in the debate over the rules - the community-collective decision has meant more dilution will come to the scoreboard. Which means more possibility for me to post scores. :P

Pixe Sukola thanked this post

one more point on your creation then. as this wording is used elsewhere, i have no problem taking you at your word for what you meant. I would take issue though with this being used as a precedent to somehow claim other writers who used the same phrase meant the same thing.

that makes a tough position, as tracks written by you and tracks written by others with the exact same wording would have different interpertations. that is not optimal, but its also not good to ignore the track writers intent. perhaps a third bad otpion is the less of all evils, perhaps tg should modify the rules to indicate your intent? not thrilled about that idea for many reasons i've already stated but this might be a case where its the least bad option

although, you seem willing to just allow the majority opinion rule and create a more explicit track on your own. to the would be complainers of "dillution" i say have it. i wish you well in your track creations

Originally Posted by Barthax

Voting influence:

Daniel's wall post attempts to influence voting in exactly the same way as Shaun's original when he requested the reject votes on his own submission. The difference is context: Shaun's was on-point in the thread of the submission, Daniel's is a wall. One is aimed at those viewing just the submission, the other is aimed at influencing site-wide.

oh what a huge difference, Im so sorry I did it that way. I will comment on the submission itself right away, so sorry.

Originally Posted by Barthax

Being a cheat:

Daniel stated in his own submission how he is cheating. Kernzy does not accuse anybody of cheating in the quoted reference. The only person mentioning cheating is Daniel.

Yes and I also stated in the very same submission that it was a joke, a parody of a "cheater", which I thought was so obviuos I didnt think it would be necesary to clarify it, but that part Paul just choses to ignore and days after he makes that comment, implying I only respect rules when it suits me which is what a cheater does. Dont tell me people dont get the idea that I might be a cheatrer when they read that.

I just hope me or anybody in the site never has a difference of opinion with kernzyp, because then he immedaitely identifies you as somebody with no respect for the rules or what is correct like he has stated many times.

@Barthax DILUTE away!!! Heh. :P

Ideas and suggestions:

"No shortcuts allowed" (then you specifically define what a "shortcut" is)

"AI must register a complete time at the end of the lap/race, a completed race/lap"

"You must follow the track grids - guided line, exactly as the AI racers follow"

"If you go "off track" ...eg. touch the grass, cut across a field, its an instant DQ...your time will not count IF it gets registered"

(Of course, any mention of a "Kernzy glitch" in the new rules, would be 100% hearsay and non-factual, as there are no proven, nor documented "glitches" via Sony, nor PolyPHONY in GT5)

Pixe Sukola thanked this post

Originally Posted by Snowflake

one more point on your creation then. as this wording is used elsewhere, i have no problem taking you at your word for what you meant. I would take issue though with this being used as a precedent to somehow claim other writers who used the same phrase meant the same thing.

that makes a tough position, as tracks written by you and tracks written by others with the exact same wording would have different interpertations. that is not optimal, but its also not good to ignore the track writers intent. perhaps a third bad otpion is the less of all evils, perhaps tg should modify the rules to indicate your intent? not thrilled about that idea for many reasons i've already stated but this might be a case where its the least bad option

although, you seem willing to just allow the majority opinion rule and create a more explicit track on your own. to the would be complainers of "dillution" i say have it. i wish you well in your track creations

I've been with TG since 2002. There are multiple "generations" (many overlapping) that have re-interpreted rules to suit themselves (my interpretations have changed over time) and leaves the site in a mess. This is just a note "generation" to make another mess. No different from the last and surely you're seeing the 2019 is different from when you joined in the very recent past-but-sufficiently-long-for-the-observant?

Originally Posted by Pixe Sukola

oh what a huge difference, Im so sorry I did it that way. I will comment on the submission itself right away, so sorry.

No apology needed to me... ;) I'm glad to highlight the difference & glad it's not lost.

Originally Posted by Pixe Sukola

Yes and I also stated in the very same submission that it was a joke, a parody of a "cheater", which I thought was so obviuos I didnt think it would be necesary to clarify it, but that part Paul just choses to ignore and days after he makes that comment, implying I only respect rules when it suits me which is what a cheater does. Dont tell me people dont get the idea that I might be a cheatrer when they read that.

It's like saying "bomb" on a plane. :P

Originally Posted by Pixe Sukola

I just hope me or anybody in the site never has a difference of opinion with kernzyp, because then he immedaitely identifies you as somebody with no respect for the rules or what is correct like he has stated many times.

He's just airing his frustration after a large bunch of the site gang up on him for having an inoffensive opinion... Not too dissimilar to some of my past experiences here & more recently JJT also. Trying to get the bullies to see their own actions as bullying is usually "long stupid and fruitless"... Note: no accusation at yourself.

(Note: if you plan to stay here as an active member learn that the "bomb" stuff was stupid on a site which bans cheaters.)

kernzyp thanked this post

kernzyp liked this post

Originally Posted by Marcade

@Barthax DILUTE away!!! Heh. :P

Ideas and suggestions:

"No shortcuts allowed" (then you specifically define what a "shortcut" is)

"AI must register a complete time at the end of the lap/race, a completed race/lap"

"You must follow the track grids - guided line, exactly as the AI racers follow"

"If you go "off track" ...eg. touch the grass, cut across a field, its an instant DQ...your time will not count IF it gets registered"

(Of course, any mention of a "Kernzy glitch" in the new rules, would be 100% hearsay and non-factual, as there are no proven, nor documented "glitches" via Sony, nor PolyPHONY in GT5)

Shaun's the one mentioning writing a new ruleset... I just get to submit my achievements all over again. :P

I’m certainly aware of differences on admins I thought though they usually explicitly over rules the prior so it wasn’t an interpretation confusion but an actual rule rewrite. but Yes regardless yes rules changed but I’d like to limit and not exasperate it

As for rule change in my stay I can’t say I’ve seen it. I’ve seen much debate about leeching in particular and strong push to make it more subjective but that push hasn’t won yet so not trying to argue just honestly responding that any change during my stay here has honestly gone over my head. I mean there’s been administrative changes but I’m not aware of actually rule changes for submissions requirements and interpretation

Originally Posted by Barthax

It's like saying "bomb" on a plane. :P

Yes, it is exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Barthax

(Note: if you plan to stay here as an active member learn that the "bomb" stuff was stupid on a site which bans cheaters.)

If that is an action that would get me banned, I wouldn't care to be here anyway.

i know the bullying thing was directed at daniel, but the context was pretty clearly mentioning things i was invovled with.

"ganged up" is technically true but i feel misleading, bullying is realy unfair though -- and i know, due to your wording you can say my refuse to admit i'm bullying jujst proves your points bullies dont see their bullies, but maybe its not seen cause its not true.

Now you're not the only person to compain about "gang up" its a common accusation in all areas of life when the majority feels different. but just as its ok for the minority to state their opinion is it really ganging up for the majority to state theirs as well? i get its intimidating being in the minority, but i dont think multiple people happening to agree are magically bullying just becuase they all made tehir stance

its also possible i missed something, but kernzy different opinion was fine, daniel was referencing bringing the argument elsewhere, and in the original thread kernzy was regulalry insulting all who disagreed which got some blow back. that one i might have missed things though.

the jjt one i take way more personally because although there i did fire back harshly, and there were quite a few of us and one of him, it stemmed from constant insults from him. i remember playing warcraft 3, in the first 5 minutes of 4 player free for all one guy attacked the other 3 of us. when we all attacked back he complained "teaming" was sleazy and unfair. there was no "teaming" we all defended from his attack. i feel the things you're calling bullying here is simliar. someone attacks a a majority and when the majority hits back its deemed bullying. i would understand it looks this way but for someone who followed it from the beginning i feel you're really mischaracterizing

i'l admit i'm offensive, i'll admit its was a majority "ganging up" on one. but to pretend it was "an unoffensive opinion" now that is misstating and ignoring the intial vollye of insults. "bullying" implies something wrong is being done, and simply being in the majority doesnt make it wrong to add your voice, even though adding your voice can be seen as "ganging up"

Yiu know what I will take the moment to learn. Perception is important. If there is perceived bullying then true or false it can result in a cycle of increased arguing. I can try to be more aware of perception and just as I try to be more gentle on new members when someone is in the minority I can try to be more gentle and aware of the psychological effect of being the minority view

Barthax liked this post

That bullying part is just complete nonsense. At best there were strong opinions and sarcasm; and even those appeared after and ONLY after Paul started making his remarks about other members mental state. Don't try to play the victim card for Paul here, he knew exactly what he was doing with pushing other members buttons.

Pixe Sukola thanked this post

Marcade liked this post

I guess you can call a heated and sometimes just silly argument between a group of adults and another adult "bullying" if you want but the JJT thing emerged from me being tired of him calling himself the champion of a game without proving anything for years. And yes I made comments that were aim to make fun fo him, but my main focus was on records, and I put a lot of effort and money into getting, and those scores along were my most important tool to pressure him to submit or shut up. And I think we can all agree that it resulted in a good thing. Now we have the very first submission from Juan after a decade, and I havent said a single bad thing about him since and I respect him more now.

Paul called people psycophats and cheaters but that is just airing his frustration in your eyes, and yet Im the one bullying him?

Marcade liked this post