Yeah i know but whenever i'm quoted i feel the primal urge to post, it's compulsive. I have seen their fanboying/girling for this game is borderline fanatical but it's the internet so i feel like the vocal minority has an easier time becoming the seen/represntative voice for decisions due to that.
I think the best course is to follow 3 things before replying;
1. Who is responding to your post?
2. Is the content of the reply worthy of the time and honor to reply in the first place to which you have something valuable to say?
3. Is there anyone else who already done the very thing you wanted to say?
So let's analyze with kittymaid's info dump shall we?
Now being kittymaid, it's basically a given that she'll never be acting in good faith, so I recommend just being more aggressive than defensive with the replies. Though I have to point out that you'll never convince her of anything, as she's too ingrained being a simp that she'll either
move the goalpost or twist the post whenever you do make a point.
Next, the whole wall of text is just there to, once again, "win the debate at all cost". On paper, it does appear to convince some minds like
alyvix. However, once glance at his history profile shows that he has only replied
once. It honestly feels a lot more like a bot, if not an NPC. I'm not going to say he's actually a sock puppet account, but with absolutely nothing else to go off, his
"someone who just lurks usually" feels quite limited in its impact.
Does he give access to "Happy Heart Hell"? Yes.
He did not. It was reported multiple times on
HH Hell thread on F95 that the game was never released to the public beyond Discord paywall. Sure, DoggieBones did eventually released HHP on F95, but to say he released HHH to the public is gaslighting. First, it was released by
Cirelc and it was repeatedly stated on the thread to support the dev, strongly implying that the HHH thread was not initially condoned by DoggieBones.
Does he give access to early builds. Yes, i even made a post [Evidence: #2859]
Do you get special roles and discord channels? Yes.
Progress updates/teasers? Yes. I even posted some myself [Evidence: #2879 #2890]
etc.
etc.
etc.
This is what I would to like to call a Strawman Fallacy. It's a fallacy where your opponent over-simplifies or misrepresents your argument (i.e., setting up a "straw man") to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of fully addressing your actual argument, she's relying on this fallacy present a superficially similar — but ultimately not equal — version of your real stance, helping them create the illusion of easily defeating you/
trinitycross.
trinitycross' statement feels more like a definition dump than an actual argument. It's Captain Obvious that
trinitycross' definition dump was to refute the analogy of the girl scouts and the customers have a right to complain. Yet, kittymaid turned his entire definition dump into a Napoleonic target practice for his proverbial line infantry; that being the loads of info dump, as if his argument was that DoggieBones doesn't bring any value to supporters period. Read once more his
definition dump, and tell me if it was actually a critique of DoggieBones in general
or a refutation of kittymaid's analogy. It's basically when progressive 'christians' cherrypick the New Testament to prove that the Bible supported abortions, when the quotes they took was in a very different definition.
You must be registered to see the links
TLDR, she turned
trinitycross' argument against kittymaid's girl scout analogy and in favor of the customer right to complain, and strawmanned it into DoggieBones not producing anything in general.