Haven't posted in 700 days.

[Nux]

With shorter games you're more likely to be able to see a match from start to finish and similarly it's more likely you will have played with the same team throughout that match. That means:

• You get to see the full story, not just part of it.
• You get to know your team instead of watching your teammates "simply leave, while new players can come and join".
• You get to feel responsible for winning, rather than help win a game you didn't help start or help start a game you didn't help win.

Of course, a big part of this is personal preference. I can see how something can feel more 'epic' when more time was invested into it: This is the very principle behind games like Eve Online, for example.

As an aside, it would be conducive to productive discussion if you refrained from the snide and unthinking remarks. I'm trying to be civil about it but a couple of times you've called attention to things I've said as if they were in error when it takes barely any consideration to realise otherwise.

[/dev/humancontroller]

you've called attention to things I've said as if they were in error

that's probably because they were ind33d in error.

[Nux]

the 480-minute game on the Procyon (procyon-r1) map on the Amsterdam Unlimited server was uber epic.

4 hours

WRONG. 8 hours. (personally, IIRC, i joined at the 110th minute).

I said 4 hours and I meant 4 hours because I have never played the same match for more than 4 hours. My experience tells me that 4 hours is too much for a single match. You may have enjoyed an 8 hour match but this has no bearing on my personal experience.

(i congratulate you on your failed use of a backward reference.)

When I say the following:

yet again, this allows for more variation.

I'm referring to the following:

It's also refreshing when players have to play the lower classes for a while.

Granted I didn't use the word 'variation' but that shouldn't stop you understanding the meaning of the word 'refreshing'.


My previous point stands. Don't be so quick to criticize.

[amz181]

Dun wurry nox, devcntrllr is jus mad cuz he cant win gaem in <6hours. plsdunbemaddevcntrllr.

[/dev/humancontroller]

When I say the following:

yet again, this allows for more variation.

I'm referring to the following:

It's also refreshing when players have to play the lower classes for a while.

it appears that even you lost track of what you referred to. obviously, by the "this" word, you were referring to:

The teams shuffle

but the problem was that you separated "shuffling" and "this" with a sentence that describes the opposite of "shuffling". again, you said:

the game ending sooner has multiple consequences:
[...]
The teams shuffle: Players aren't so likely to switch teams during a match and doubly so when they've invested in a team for many hours. yet again, this allows for more variation.

that is, essentially, you said:

let's elaborate on what is true under circumstances XYZ.
statement W is true. the opposite of W is true under not-XYZ. this allows...

My previous point stands.

mine too.

Dun wurry nox, devcntrllr is jus mad cuz he cant win gaem in <6hours. plsdunbemaddevcntrllr.

congratulations, you have successfully mixed up my opinion with that of Nux.

[Nux]

I agree that I could have been more clear about what 'this' was referring to. That said (in the previous sentence), it's a rather petty criticism (the criticism you made about my ambiguous use of the word 'this' in the last sentence of the second bullet point of the reply #27 in this thread) considering you had no real trouble understanding me. Moreover you continue to accuse and criticize (by saying I've lost track of to what 'this' refers), even when your own ambiguous sentence (where you congratulated me on my failed use of something you called a 'backward reference' (you probably just meant 'reference' but incorrectly used a technical term instead)) was the reason I was left guessing as to what exact part of "yet again, this allows for more variation" you (/dev/humancontroller) were criticizing.

Dun wurry nox, devcntrllr is jus mad cuz he cant win gaem in <6hours. plsdunbemaddevcntrllr.

congratulations, you have successfully mixed up my opinion with that of Nux.

I see nothing wrong with what he said (even his noobgramr is flawless). He's saying the only reason you play long games is because you don't know how to end them quickly. Yet again you're quick to point out how you think a person could have said the wrong thing before even considering what they might have meant.

i herd u liek tiny text

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

nux, i think ive mentioned this to you before, d/hc evaluates things like a machine.  if i were a better programmer, or had more time, i'd write you a tool to check your text, so that such evaluation errors do not happen in the future.

hell, even i forget this truth sometimes and end up arguing semantics for a couple of pages.

[/dev/humancontroller]

(you probably just meant 'reference' but incorrectly used a technical term instead)

a backward reference is a reference that grammatically (sometimes semantically) refers to a term or subject that was previously introduced. by example:

• "there was a car here. it was green." (it refers to the car that was introduced in the first sentence. in place of it, one could have used the car (but not a car).)
• "there was a car here. this pisses me off." (this refers to the fact that there was something here, that is, to the whole previous sentence.)

btw, sometimes, the word it is not a reference:

• "it's raining." (it does not refer to anything (not even bullets). note: a fuller sentence is: "it's raining bullets.")
• "it's impossible to fold an A4 paper 13 times." (it does not refer to anything. note: the sentence is not to be confused with: "a hypothetical act is magic. it's impossible to do.")

however, one would argue that it is a forward reference in "it's impossible to [...]".
a definite example of a forward reference is:

• "remember this: you're WRONG."

what did you think backward reference meant?

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

in grammar, that sort of thing is called an anaphoric reference for "backward" references, and a catphoric reference for "forward" references.

you're "it's raining" example is improper, as the "it" in the sentence would be understood from context.  "it's raining (outside/here)" or, in a dialog -

"what is the weather like in dublin?"
"it's raining."


horray for grammar lessons.

[Nux]

I don't need you to invent a definition, even if you make a valiant attempt to construct it such that 'backward' isn't completely redundant when talking about referencing. I accused you of using a technical term where it is not generally used. The only sources I can find that use such a phrase are within the context of programming or search engines and indicate a very specific mechanism to which you are patently not referring. The places you might find a usage such as yours must be quite rare and I'm willing to bet are the result of the same misapplication of a technical phrase.

Please don't try to teach me English. I expect I make more of an effort than you to use it correctly in the vast majority of cases. Yet sometimes I find it's better to be quick than exact, so forgive me if I assumed a degree of intelligence on the part of the reader.


EDIT: Well done RAKninja for finding the term!

[kharnov]

It's okay, the remnants of the forum crowd are continuing the daily weekly quota of conversations by engaging in more cyclic pedantry than the autistic lovechild of a Wikipedia flamewar and a nerd fight at a Star Trek convention.

[/dev/humancontroller]

I don't need you to invent a definition, even if you make a valiant attempt to construct it such that 'backward' isn't completely redundant when talking about referencing. I accused you of using a technical term where it is not generally used.

but RAK even linked a Wikipedia page describing "backward reference" and "forward reference", and there is at least one grammar page describing the meaning of those terms.

The only sources I can find that use such a phrase are within the context of programming or search engines and indicate a very specific mechanism to which you are patently not referring. The places you might find a usage such as yours must be quite rare

that is because there is a programming term "backward reference", but no programming term "anaphora". i'd say that the usage-shares of the anaphora and backward reference terms are roughly equal in linguistics, so had programmers chosen the word "anaphora" instead, you would have found "backward reference" more easily on the web.

Please don't try to teach me English. I expect I make more of an effort than you to use it correctly in the vast majority of cases.

i doubt that, excluding the non-capitalization of sentences.

Yet sometimes I find it's better to be quick than exact, so forgive me if I assumed a degree of intelligence on the part of the reader.

do you understand that if someone criticizes you by "you failed to used X correctly", then he/she understands what you meant, and knows what should have been used instead?
there are 3 levels of "intelligence":
1. the reader has no clue, and pretends to understand the text.
2. the reader understands the text, notices an error, and auto-corrects the error for himself/herself.
3. the reader understands the text, notices an error, auto-corrects the error, and additionally understands that communication failures should be decried for the good of this world in the long run, and acts appropriately.
guess which level i am on.

(however, sometimes, if some text uses an utterly retarded word/wording, then i consciously refuse to try to comprehend the text, rather than falling into the trap of "possibly" misinterpreting the intent.)

on a side-note, if you were an intelligent programmer, you'd understand why PHP sux goatballs and why i avoid it: because the lack of a strong type system makes programmers (especially amateurs) shoot themselves in the foot utterly often (and it's a crappy hack around C). any time (if ever) i write a line of PHP, i fear that the code contains a supercardinally infinite amout of security bugs that allow attackers to take over the whole server running the code.

[/dev/humancontroller]

yeah, kharnov is butthurt.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

i am not infallible.  my attribution of improper-ness to "it's raining" was shortsighted.  it is either exophora or homophora.

[/dev/humancontroller]

oh fuck; i forgot to respond to RAK.

you're "it's raining" example is improper, as the "it" in the sentence would be understood from context.  "it's raining (outside/here)" or, in a dialog -

"what is the weather like in dublin?"
"it's raining."

WRONG. in "it's raining.", it would be understood alone, without context. it does not refer to anything, it is merely a filler. however, in "this is bad.", this refers to something, but there is no textual context, so this is a dangling reference¹.

¹ just-coined linguistic term.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

oh fuck; i forgot to respond to RAK.

you're "it's raining" example is improper, as the "it" in the sentence would be understood from context.  "it's raining (outside/here)" or, in a dialog -

"what is the weather like in dublin?"
"it's raining."

WRONG. in "it's raining.", it would be understood alone, without context. it does not refer to anything, it is merely a filler. however, in "this is bad.", this refers to something, but there is no textual context, so this is a dangling reference¹.

¹ just-coined linguistic term.

see above.
the subject of the sentence is "it".  what is "it"?  in context, the adjective "raining" tells us you are referring to the weather.  "the weather" is not included in the sentence, so this is an example of exophora or homophora.  if we had context, we could then consider it to be either anaphoric or catphoric, depending on the arrangement of the context.

[/dev/humancontroller]

see above.
the subject of the sentence is "it".  what is "it"?  in context, the adjective "raining" tells us you are referring to the weather.  "the weather" is not included in the sentence, so this is an example of exophora or homophora.  if we had context, we could then consider it to be either anaphoric or catphoric, depending on the arrangement of the context.

WRONG. whether i am referring to the weather is arguable, but i am not referring to the weather via the it word.
see above.

a fuller sentence is: "it's raining bullets."

seriously, try to analyze "it's raining bullets.", "it sux to be you.", and "it sux when you're WRONG.".

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

if it were "raining bullets" than the meaning would most definitely be clear by situational context.  even so, "bullets" is so infrequently used in conjunction with "raining" that saying "it's raining" and meaning "bullets" would not be understood.  the actual meaning, however, is irrelevant.  it does not matter what it is you intended, the reference is still either exophoric.  possibly homophoric to normal people, who do not use the phrase "raining bullets" often, if at all.

"it's raining bullets" - catphoric reference.  bullets is it.

"it suCKS to be you" - catphoric reference.  it is "to be".

"it sucks when you are WRONG" - yet another catphoric.  you could have at least tried a little variety.  or followed your original example and instead just gave me "it sucks".

oh, and you are WRONG, anaphora exists in programming.  see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphoric_macro

regardless, you are arguing details that have no application to how correct i am at categorizing your reference.

[/dev/humancontroller]

normal

WRONG.

catphoric reference

if it were "raining bullets" than the meaning would most definitely be clear by situational context.  even so, "bullets" is so infrequently used in conjunction with "raining" that saying "it's raining" and meaning "bullets" would not be understood. it does not matter what it is you intended, the reference is still either exophoric.

WRONG. a quick web search yielded the following page as the 4th hit: It's raining cats and, well, dogs!.

"it's raining bullets" - catphoric reference.  bullets is it.

WRONG. in "it's raining bullets", it refers to bullets, while in "it's raining.", it refers to the weather? you're illogical. also, the it word is singular, while the bullets word is plural.
another example: "it stinks in here.". again, in this case, it does not refer to anything, not even to some unspoken object, such as "the garbage can".

"it suCKS to be you" - catphoric reference.  it is "to be".

"it sucks when you are WRONG" - yet another catphoric.  you could have at least tried a little variety.  or followed your original example and instead just gave me "it sucks".

[...]

you are arguing details that have no application to how correct i am at categorizing your reference.

WRONG. see above.

[Nux]

I don't need you to invent a definition, even if you make a valiant attempt to construct it such that 'backward' isn't completely redundant when talking about referencing. I accused you of using a technical term where it is not generally used.

but RAK even linked a Wikipedia page describing "backward reference" and "forward reference", and there is at least one grammar page describing the meaning of those terms.

I am aware RAK pointed to the page and congratulated him for it. This established that there exists a correct term that you didn't use. Though the page on 'Anaphora' does use the phrase 'backward reference' this isn't presented as a synonym (as it would conventionally be explicitly stated as such at the start of the article) but is simply a description of the meaning of the term 'Anaphora' used in a stricter sense. In reply #37 you were indicating 'backward reference' had the established definition you provided (in response to my accusation to the contrary) and I maintain that where it is an established term, it does not have that meaning.

The only sources I can find that use such a phrase are within the context of programming or search engines and indicate a very specific mechanism to which you are patently not referring. The places you might find a usage such as yours must be quite rare

that is because there is a programming term "backward reference", but no programming term "anaphora". i'd say that the usage-shares of the anaphora and backward reference terms are roughly equal in linguistics, so had programmers chosen the word "anaphora" instead, you would have found "backward reference" more easily on the web.

I have no idea what makes you think the usage of those phrases depend on each other in that way.

Please don't try to teach me English. I expect I make more of an effort than you to use it correctly in the vast majority of cases.

i doubt that, excluding the non-capitalization of sentences.

Why is it that you avoid capitalization, by the way?

Yet sometimes I find it's better to be quick than exact, so forgive me if I assumed a degree of intelligence on the part of the reader.

do you understand that if someone criticizes you by "you failed to used X correctly", then he/she understands what you meant, and knows what should have been used instead?

I understand that. If my original sentence were actually wrong and not just slightly hard to follow then you might have had a point. Just because I say I assumed intelligence on the part of the reader doesn't mean I didn't also expect people who did understand to point out the flawed sentence structure. When there's not much to talk about on these forums, it's understandable that you might want to draw attention to minutiae for the sake of continuing this lovely word match.

on a side-note, if you were an intelligent programmer, you'd understand why PHP sux goatballs and why i avoid it: because the lack of a strong type system makes programmers (especially amateurs) shoot themselves in the foot utterly often (and it's a crappy hack around C). any time (if ever) i write a line of PHP, i fear that the code contains a supercardinally infinite amout of security bugs that allow attackers to take over the whole server running the code.

You seem to be responding to something that I didn't say. You also seem to be implying I'm not an intelligent programmer with zero reason to come to such a conclusion. Otherwise, I'm happy to talk about how PHP sucks. I've not even attempted to use it since nearly everyone I've met has warned me against it.

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

you should really read your own search results, d/hc.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/itsraining.html

furthermore, your example is a visual pun on an idiom which refers to, guess what, the weather.

your comprehension is WRONG.  even with my quoted text, you failed to see that "bullets is it" means exactly the same as "it refers to bullets".  for the part about raining, that is precisely why it is exophoric or homophoric.  the reference is not contained within the text, though it may be understood by context.  since you agree that "bullets" refers to "it", why bring up plurality?  everyone knows english is highly irregular in this regard, i would hope.  would you prefer "they is raining bullets" or "them is raining bullets"?

with the "it stinks" example, you are being obtuse.  as i have repeatedly told you (and provided links to explain the concept of) if the subject of a reference is not contained in the text, the reference is exophoric.  if the reference is exophoric, but the reference can be reasonably implied by context, it is homophoric.

so, now that i have shown you, yet again, are you willing to accept the truth of the matter, open your mind, and learn something?  no, who am i kidding, you'll just look for some way to twist the semantics to show me being wrong, and you the paragon of correctness.

[/dev/humancontroller]

In reply #37 you were indicating 'backward reference' had the established definition you provided (in response to my accusation to the contrary) and I maintain that where it is an established term, it does not have that meaning.

explain your perceived differences between

• my proposed descriptions in #37,
• your personal interpretations,
• the Wikipedia article, and
• that other article.

there is a programming term "backward reference", but no programming term "anaphora". i'd say that the usage-shares of the anaphora and backward reference terms are roughly equal in linguistics, so had programmers chosen the word "anaphora" instead, you would have found "backward reference" more easily on the web.

I have no idea what makes you think the usage of those phrases depend on each other in that way.

the usage of the phrases (in linguistics) do not depend on the existence of programming terms. i said that your ability to find the linguistic terms via web search engines depends on the existence of conflicting, more-commonly-searched programming terms. again, the reason why you didn't find the linguistic backward reference term (so easily) is because the same, highly popular term in programming was in your way. had there been no such term in programming, the web search would have likely shown you to the linguistic term immediately.

Why is it that you avoid capitalization, by the way?

it is my preference/dream to change the language by throwing out old, unjustified conventions, if doing so would require at most neligible learning on the other people's side. i actually use capitalization sometimes, when there is a broad, professional audience that i am trying address, and a long-term record of the written things, with fair likeliness to be reread in the future. the audience here is tiny, and i am not really trying to address it (you might as well stop reading these forums). however, there is some public record of posts. this, coupled with my longstanding conventions, i simply use non-capitalized sentences, and that's basically it. however, i should really start using "u" for "you", and so on, because that's shorter, easier to read and input, and there is a ~668.5¹ audience here. i use "u" on IRC, a media mostly for one-time chatting.

on a side-note, if you were an intelligent programmer, you'd understand why PHP sux goatballs and why i avoid it: because the lack of a strong type system makes programmers (especially amateurs) shoot themselves in the foot utterly often (and it's a crappy hack around C). any time (if ever) i write a line of PHP, i fear that the code contains a supercardinally infinite amout of security bugs that allow attackers to take over the whole server running the code.

You seem to be responding to something that I didn't say. You also seem to be implying I'm not an intelligent programmer with zero reason to come to such a conclusion. Otherwise, I'm happy to talk about how PHP sucks. I've not even attempted to use it since nearly everyone I've met has warned me against it.

i had to distinguish average/retarded programmers from intelligent ones -- saying "if you were a programmer" would have been WRONG. my assumption was actually that you were not a programmer (WRONG?).
so yeah, PHP sux. btw, i forgot to add:
yes, i know that Chuck Norris uses PHP to code the Mars Neptune rovers and your pace maker, but seriously, you don't, in general, scratch your left ear unnecessarily with your right hand reaching over your head.

you should really read your own search results, d/hc.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/itsraining.html

ah, nice catch. that article fully explains my view.

your comprehension is WRONG.

WRONG.

you failed to see that "bullets is it" means exactly the same as "it refers to bullets".

WRONG.

you agree that "bullets" refers to "it"

WRONG.

why bring up plurality?

because that points out that "it refers to bullets" is nonsensical.

with the "it stinks" example, you are being obtuse.  as i have repeatedly told you (and provided links to explain the concept of) if the subject of a reference is not contained in the text, the reference is exophoric.  if the reference is exophoric, but the reference can be reasonably implied by context, it is homophoric.

irrelevant. again, it is not a reference.

so, now that i have shown you, yet again, are you willing to accept the truth of the matter, open your mind, and learn something? no, who am i kidding, you'll just keep on being WRONG.


¹ semi-1337

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

for the love of whatever you hold dear, do not start habitually shortening "you" to "u", and other such idiocy. actually, i find i fail to care.  your leetspeak and that tired chuck norris joke have expanded my apathy bar past its capacity.

furthermore, your willful ignorance in this situation, in the face of facts, has killed the small measure of enjoyment i garner from arguing with you.

whatever.  enjoy your delusions.

[/dev/humancontroller]

your willful ignorance in this situation, in the face of facts

WRONG.

your delusions

WRONG.

[ULTRA Random ViruS]

It's like the booster is now alien's official healing station, unless someone's willing to afk as a basi.

you dont have to "afk" to do good healing as a basi.  i find it quite easy to balance out "remaining close in order to heal" with "kill humans and human structures".  i find that even in "ninja basi" mode, where you are solo, it is easy to stop for a couple of seconds and top off the health of larger classes as you move around the level.

You do realise that basi grab isn't ping-compensated. In other words, with my ping to everywhere but asia unofficials (dead) as long as a human is running straight, I cannot grab AND swipe at the same time. I have to either:
a) Use basi "like a marauder"
b) Time my grabs ahead, and if I'm lucky, the human would walk into it. Most low-pingers find this really  easy to dodge, just like 1.1 luci balls, except you could say the luci balls won't move. I also would have to stand still and wait for the human to be grabbed, and it isn't ninja-lisking like this. In fact by the time he gets grabbed from my POV i'd be dead on the server anyway. In other words, I have no use for basi apart from healing myself and allies. (Healing allies also requires me to "aim myself ahead" if they move)

[RAKninja-Decepticon]

It's like the booster is now alien's official healing station, unless someone's willing to afk as a basi.

you dont have to "afk" to do good healing as a basi.  i find it quite easy to balance out "remaining close in order to heal" with "kill humans and human structures".  i find that even in "ninja basi" mode, where you are solo, it is easy to stop for a couple of seconds and top off the health of larger classes as you move around the level.

You do realise that basi grab isn't ping-compensated. In other words, with my ping to everywhere but asia unofficials (dead) as long as a human is running straight, I cannot grab AND swipe at the same time. I have to either:
a) Use basi "like a marauder"
b) Time my grabs ahead, and if I'm lucky, the human would walk into it. Most low-pingers find this really  easy to dodge, just like 1.1 luci balls, except you could say the luci balls won't move. I also would have to stand still and wait for the human to be grabbed, and it isn't ninja-lisking like this. In fact by the time he gets grabbed from my POV i'd be dead on the server anyway. In other words, I have no use for basi apart from healing myself and allies. (Healing allies also requires me to "aim myself ahead" if they move)

what, lag makes it so you can't be a hat?

[Nux]

In reply #37 you were indicating 'backward reference' had the established definition you provided (in response to my accusation to the contrary) and I maintain that where it is an established term, it does not have that meaning.

explain your perceived differences

The difference is in what term is being defined.

The crux of the matter is the meaning of words in/out of context. Those articles are about the word 'Anaphora' and so where each of them uses the phrase 'backward reference', this only has it's intended meaning because the subject has already been established. You didn't provide enough context when you originally used the phrase 'backward reference' and so it didn't have it's intended meaning and I misunderstood you.
Long story short: You used an idiom out of context which implied you wanted me to interpret it figuratively, but the meaning attached to that idiom was not the one you intended. If you had really thought that wasn't the generally accepted term for it, you wouldn't have used it without clarification and you also wouldn't have gone on to incorrectly attribute a definition of another word to it.

there is a programming term "backward reference", but no programming term "anaphora". i'd say that the usage-shares of the anaphora and backward reference terms are roughly equal in linguistics, so had programmers chosen the word "anaphora" instead, you would have found "backward reference" more easily on the web.

I have no idea what makes you think the usage of those phrases depend on each other in that way.

so had programmers chosen the word "anaphora" instead, you would have found "backward reference" more easily on the web.

so had programmers chosen the word "anaphora" instead

I don't understand why programmers would choose anaphora instead or how you can draw from this any conclusions about the hypothetical search results that would occur if they did. Yet, let's say your point was that your usage only seemed rare because my search was being dominated by results of an alternative usage. Surely this is only evidence to the fact that your usage, if it ever does have that meaning by itself, is less popular than the usage I did find and so you really should have provided clarification if you wanted to be understood.

[vcxzet]

What a waste of time. Try talking to a wall; at least it wont think it is always right and everyone else is wrong.

[Nux]

What a waste of time. Try talking to a wall; at least it wont think it is always right and everyone else is wrong.

For me at least, this is an outlet for all that repressed pedantry I have from talking to people who will often say things that are patently false but who I must also try to maintain a good working relationship with (i.e. not teaching them to regret talking to you). Here, I have no such limitations and so enjoy letting loose in these pointless debates.

[janev]

Rectal prolapse.