Yes.. this is definitely a coordinated attack. Didn't you think that you're just writing nonsense?By definition, a group constitutes two or more individualsWhen you're subjected to coordinated insults with others endorsing them—yes, that qualifies as collective targeting (collusion against an individual). Constructive dialogue, however, operates under entirely different principles.
Maybe you need an update as chat? 
Yes, I'm writing everything correctly. The group of people you're part of is engaged in insulting the author of this game. They call him a scammer without any basis. People who try to argue their point in a reasoned manner are called moralists and Zip's defendersYes.. this is definitely a coordinated attack. Didn't you think that you're just writing nonsense?
(you're one of those people). Later, if someone sticks to their opinion, they start insulting them, and then the insults get deleted by the administration. But I manage to see who supports these insults before the thread is removed, Sid. If I refresh the chat, who will you be talking to?
I hope it's not with the machine anymore.Sid. If I refresh the chat, who will you be talking to?
If I had such a need I would fire up my own chatNunca viste isto?I hope it's not with the machine anymore.
no, just one of fans of original Bobby game. I've recreated Bobby's house with some additions, rooms, and etc. They modified it a bit, but I clearly can see prints of my project.
Nice work. I asked thtat the original autor o f the game was raince, right?
No save files in this version, 2 mins of content
Your comment completely misses the point of this discussion. Let me remind you that my original stance (and I emphasize this) was that Zip must have had valid reasons for his behavior. You can't build an audience on promises alone - there needs to be an actual project concept. Zip succeeded in implementing his ideas: he created a game and continued developing it. People subscribed and supported him. Then Zip changed his approach to project development. This is exactly where I argued that people don't just change their minds spontaneously - there must be reasons behind it, potentially difficult life circumstances.
I've been personally accused of moralizing and defending Zip's interests, when in reality the opposite has become clear. This isn't about defending Zip - it's about calling out the morality police. Let me break it down:
This exposition should suffice. However, given the presence of certain "cultivated individuals" within this forum, I anticipate further responses. The necessity of reiterating fundamental concepts for those with reductive interpretations of reality becomes increasingly tedious. Interested parties may examine the complete dialogue thread for comprehensive context
- Attempts to "enlighten" individuals about an alleged "Zip scam" and influence his patrons
- Unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against Zip, relying exclusively on circumstantial evidence
- The infantilization of patrons based solely on lexical and grammatical analysis
- Manifestations of evident discomfort regarding Zip's financial success
- Irrelevant commentary containing incoherent content, invariably infused with moralistic overtones
If Zip starts changing characters, you'll see the game in 2125 at the earliest ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
