In Maoster's Red Squad Clarification
forum topic, I pointed out the irony and some inconsistencies in his
accusations. He said that I wasn't there in Castilla Temple "yesterday",
as if that alone absolves him of those duplicities. I have contacts, I
don't need to be there to know things. And I was there when Othrys clan repeatedly did the very same thing that he mentioned in the opening post.
Everything I have mentioned are completely relevant to the points he raised. Instead of attempting to address them as to why they are allegedly "irrelevant", all he could do is to rage and resort to nothing more than name-calling as per his modus operandi. If he thinks that throwing a string of insults is all it takes to make a good argument, then he is sadly mistaken. And as usual, like so many topics he started, they were locked by moderators for good reasons.
If ad hominem is the best he can do in support of a proposition, he seriously needs an education in building logical arguments. Instead of behaving in a boorish, uncultured manner, he could have at least make the effort to avoid the more common logical fallacies. If he cannot even avoid such common traps in thought processing, guess who is the "ignorant fool"? As so often is the case, shame and embarrassment give way to rage, a fairly common response as a result of cognitive dissonance.
And no, I don't get depressed with the game. I get bored. It is hard to imagine someone, even a person without rudimentary knowledge of psychology, who could not tell the difference between depression and boredom. Yet somehow, he managed it. Amazing.
He claimed that bans were handed out based on number of tickets submitted. What epistemological method was used to arrive at that conclusion? What empirical data support those claims? He accused the administrators of being biased, and yet offered no justification whatsoever to support his claim. Knowledge, as commonly defined in epistemology, is justified true belief. He failed to justify his belief, and he failed to demonstrate its veracity. So all we ended up with is a string of whimsical rants bordering on libel.
I suggested an experimentation which can be empirically repeated, observed, and tested to see if his claim is true. And of course, he avoided addressing it, since he probably knew deep-down that his accusations have no empirical basis whatsoever. If the experiments are to be conducted, he would likely be proven false.
After all these years, I have never been banned, neither in-game nor in the forums. This begs the question: Why is it that some players get banned repeatedly? Is it just a mean old world (with evil administrators/moderators) that is out to get them? Or is there something inherently wrong with their own characters or behaviors? People who lack introspection always blame others instead of examining themselves for possible faults. Interestingly enough, this is slightly similar to something known in sociology of religion as persecution complex. It is a manifestation of self-righteousness, in which the subject believes that the world is in the grip of the devil (or evil administrators), and thus the more persecution (or ban) he receives, the more righteous he must be in the eyes of God. Persecution becomes a barometer of righteousness. It will never occur to such individuals that perhaps they were persecuted/banned because they violated some rules and thus richly deserved it.
Generally, G1 has been very lenient when it comes to suspensions. This year's Halloween event is a good example. Other publishers have permanently banned players who exploited an event bug, but for G1, nothing happened to those exploiters so far. (See Journal #163 for details.) The same can be said for other issues. Instead of being grateful for their leniency, some people are shameless enough to actually ask for compensation after being temporary banned.
One more thing. Bragging about real life is already lame enough, but bragging about gaming in a virtual environment takes it to a whole new level. Throughout history, the truly illustrious people who are good in their respective disciplines have no need to brag, mainly because bragging won't make them any better and instead demeans their own stations, making them undignified. Bragging is nothing more than a desperate cry for attention, underlying an insecurity which is unseemly and unbecoming in a person of accomplishment. The bravado is an attempt to establish an internal locus of control, but ended up over-compensating. So the next time you meet a braggart (in-game or in real life) shamelessly talking about how good he himself is at something, remember this.
As for his charge that I'm self-centered, let's just say that I'm not one of the subjects of the following fascinating quote by Raiden, one of G1 administrators: