|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 2:08:01 GMT
Gerd von Rundstedt , this was supposed to be a message to you, but apparently you can only message to staff members. But since i don't want to just delete the message, i'll just post it here as well: Hey buddy, your top tier post about Bottle of life gave a new idea. Not the best idea, but an idea. Basically, i thought while in the bathroom, why not make a new group? Of course, all great ideas are produced while one excretes waste products from the body( probably because it makes room for those brilliant ideas), so this new idea is definitely great. Basically, the group is pretty much a satire group, where we post satiric, sarcastic and joke posts. That would be fine without a group, as i made tons of posts like those in the past and now, but it seems that some of the other members that aren't native english speakers or aren't really that versed in the art of sarcasm, seem to take it seriously. So why not make a group where we just make satirical guides not meant to be taken seriously? Of course, there's another hidden purpose, and that is to bring attention to not so looked at areas/generals/units in the game. We both know Charlemagne op, but what about other generals like say, Pachacuti, who have legit value. We can make a satirical posts and talk about how great aunty Pacha is obviously the most motherly general out there,while bringing into attention his positives. Just a thought  .
Saltin , i know i still have alot of guides to edit, got them written out and tidied out, so why not give myself more work. stoic , you did say there was a lot of groups, so why not add another . We'll still discuss with Gerd von Rundstedt and other interested members about it, but i'm determined to make this happen. As much as it's funny and amusing to me that some members take my sarcastic replies seriously, it can ruin some poor guy's run if they do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Nov 28, 2021 4:02:23 GMT
To start off, I'd say "If great aunty Pacha is obviously the most motherly general out there, then Gerd von Rundstedt is obviously the most controversial guy out here". Also Deleted, don't you think we'll be having too many groups then? "As much as it's funny and amusing to me that some members take my sarcastic replies seriously, it can ruin some poor guy's run if they do so." You can say it sort of happened out there in the GoG3 boards. People were sarcastically talking about how good Boris was, how he can destroy Manstein in one shot, etc etc. Some poor chap took it seriously and bought him. Not that he's bad, but he's too weak. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 4:22:54 GMT
To start off, I'd say "If great aunty Pacha is obviously the most motherly general out there, then Gerd von Rundstedt is obviously the most controversial guy out here". Also Deleted , don't you think we'll be having too many groups then? "As much as it's funny and amusing to me that some members take my sarcastic replies seriously, it can ruin some poor guy's run if they do so." You can say it sort of happened out there in the GoG3 boards. People were sarcastically talking about how good Boris was, how he can destroy Manstein in one shot, etc etc. Some poor chap took it seriously and bought him. Not that he's bad, but he's too weak. Yeah, that's why a group that's known for sarcastic and satirical comments and replies could make it easier for others to know that it shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's also worse for me as i enjoy making deadpan sarcastic comments from time to time, the type that would pass as a serious comment without any context. Besides, i'm not known for my serious writing style: either i make one with some deadpan humor or a one line joke, or i just make satirical posts from time to time. A group dedicated to that would make me feel much better when writing guides . |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Nov 28, 2021 4:27:10 GMT
To start off, I'd say "If great aunty Pacha is obviously the most motherly general out there, then Gerd von Rundstedt is obviously the most controversial guy out here". Also Deleted , don't you think we'll be having too many groups then? "As much as it's funny and amusing to me that some members take my sarcastic replies seriously, it can ruin some poor guy's run if they do so." You can say it sort of happened out there in the GoG3 boards. People were sarcastically talking about how good Boris was, how he can destroy Manstein in one shot, etc etc. Some poor chap took it seriously and bought him. Not that he's bad, but he's too weak. Yeah, that's why a group that's known for sarcastic and satirical comments and replies could make it easier for others to know that it shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's also worse for me as i enjoy making deadpan sarcastic comments from time to time, the type that would pass as a serious comment without any context. Besides, i'm not known for my serious writing style: either i make one with some deadpan humor or a one line joke, or i just make satirical posts from time to time. A group dedicated to that would make me feel much better when writing guides . ยฏ\_(ใ)_/ยฏ I don't know what to say regarding this new group. Alright, convince me (and others) why should we have this group? (It's the first time I'm using a human face emoji) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 4:38:04 GMT
John Marston, first off: more membership participation and discussion. Some of discussion is made under satirical posts, more than serious ones. I usually add in contrarian opinions in my posts dating back 2 years ago for that reason, like my opinion about Surena for example, which led to further dicussion on what makes a general useful. Second: makes confusion less common. As mentioned, a group known for satirical content would make new members or passing readers know that the "advice" given should be taken with a grain of salt. Third: more threads would be explored. Similar to point one, making serious threads can be quite boring( i would know). By adding more satirical threads, less talked about areas of the game, such as say, optimal use of a subpar general, or actual value of an item considered as the best, it would allow for better understanding of the game, along with putting more scrutiny into commonly held ideas, and challenging those ideas while not being too argumentative and instead poking holes in the logic given. That's it for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Nov 28, 2021 4:42:09 GMT
John Marston , first off: more membership participation and discussion. Some of discussion is made under satirical posts, more than serious ones. I usually add in contrarian opinions in my posts dating back 2 years ago for that reason, like my opinion about Surena for example, which led to further dicussion on what makes a general useful. Second: makes confusion less common. As mentioned, a group known for satirical content would make new members or passing readers know that the "advice" given should be taken with a grain of salt. Third: more threads would be explored. Similar to point one, making serious threads can be quite boring( i would know). By adding more satirical threads, less talked about areas of the game, such as say, optimal use of a subpar general, or actual value of an item considered as the best, it would allow for better understanding of the game, along with putting more scrutiny into commonly held ideas, and challenging those ideas while not being too argumentative and instead poking holes in the logic given. That's it for now. Why can't we just create a seperate thread with a disclaimer at the first post that this shouldn't be taken seriously? Or why not do an analysis of that general/item, like 6Johnny23 does in GOG3. Members can discuss that general's utility there. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 4:53:34 GMT
John Marston , first off: more membership participation and discussion. Some of discussion is made under satirical posts, more than serious ones. I usually add in contrarian opinions in my posts dating back 2 years ago for that reason, like my opinion about Surena for example, which led to further dicussion on what makes a general useful. Second: makes confusion less common. As mentioned, a group known for satirical content would make new members or passing readers know that the "advice" given should be taken with a grain of salt. Third: more threads would be explored. Similar to point one, making serious threads can be quite boring( i would know). By adding more satirical threads, less talked about areas of the game, such as say, optimal use of a subpar general, or actual value of an item considered as the best, it would allow for better understanding of the game, along with putting more scrutiny into commonly held ideas, and challenging those ideas while not being too argumentative and instead poking holes in the logic given. That's it for now. Why can't we just create a seperate thread with a disclaimer at the first post that this shouldn't be taken seriously? Or why not do an analysis of that general/item, like 6Johnny23 does in GOG3. Members can discuss that general's utility there. As mentioned, entertainment. That, and let's say one makes an analysis of an item no one cares about. Then no one would still care about it, might be interesting if it has hidden value, but at the end of the day it won't be remembered. One written in a different style that is more amusing and comedically contrarian would evoke more desire to give a response towards it. It also serves as practice in writing: writing satirical content that balances subtlety and seriousness is good practice. I plan to make the group similar to group editors and scholars, but more as a devil's advocate type group, and rather than using argumentative comments to disprove something, satirical comments poking holes in arguments would be less offensive, provided those comments are well made. As for the: why make this group? The same can be asked for every other group. Why make guide editors when one can simply edit their own threads? Why make scholars when one can simply make guides on their own? Why make the star wars group, or the world fastest conqueror group? Because at the end of the day, we are social animals, and groups gives us more motivation to do something . |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Nov 28, 2021 5:00:37 GMT
Why can't we just create a seperate thread with a disclaimer at the first post that this shouldn't be taken seriously? Or why not do an analysis of that general/item, like 6Johnny23 does in GOG3. Members can discuss that general's utility there. As mentioned, entertainment. That, and let's say one makes an analysis of an item no one cares about. Then no one would still care about it, might be interesting if it has hidden value, but at the end of the day it won't be remembered. One written in a different style that is more amusing and comedically contrarian would evoke more desire to give a response towards it. It also serves as practice in writing: writing satirical content that balances subtlety and seriousness is good practice. I plan to make the group similar to group editors and scholars, but more as a devil's advocate type group, and rather than using argumentative comments to disprove something, satirical comments poking holes in arguments would be less offensive, provided those comments are well made. As for the: why make this group? The same can be asked for every other group. Why make guide editors when one can simply edit their own threads? Why make scholars when one can simply make guides on their own? Why make the star wars group, or the world fastest conqueror group? Because at the end of the day, we are social animals, and groups gives us more motivation to do something . Agree on the first part. Totally disagree on the second. You say that - " let's say one makes an analysis of an item no one cares about. Then no one would still care about it, might be interesting if it has hidden value, but at the end of the day it won't be remembered." Alright. What's the use of making guides which no one cares about and also, making a group on that is my point  The purpose of making Scholars, Guide editors is that people can recognize that their members had made a lot of quality guides and provide worthy information. No one wants to others to recognize as the person who makes lot of "extremely satirical guides about which no one cares." Moreover, I don't also want many Gerd von Rundstedt s coming here. 1 Gerd von Rundstedt is more than the forum can handle *Again, only Spongebob fans will get the joke* |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 6:23:33 GMT
As mentioned, entertainment. That, and let's say one makes an analysis of an item no one cares about. Then no one would still care about it, might be interesting if it has hidden value, but at the end of the day it won't be remembered. One written in a different style that is more amusing and comedically contrarian would evoke more desire to give a response towards it. It also serves as practice in writing: writing satirical content that balances subtlety and seriousness is good practice. I plan to make the group similar to group editors and scholars, but more as a devil's advocate type group, and rather than using argumentative comments to disprove something, satirical comments poking holes in arguments would be less offensive, provided those comments are well made. As for the: why make this group? The same can be asked for every other group. Why make guide editors when one can simply edit their own threads? Why make scholars when one can simply make guides on their own? Why make the star wars group, or the world fastest conqueror group? Because at the end of the day, we are social animals, and groups gives us more motivation to do something . Agree on the first part. Totally disagree on the second. You say that - " let's say one makes an analysis of an item no one cares about. Then no one would still care about it, might be interesting if it has hidden value, but at the end of the day it won't be remembered." Alright. What's the use of making guides which no one cares about and also, making a group on that is my point The purpose of making Scholars, Guide editors is that people can recognize that their members had made a lot of quality guides and provide worthy information. No one wants to others to recognize as the person who makes lot of "extremely satirical guides about which no one cares." Moreover, I don't also want many Gerd von Rundstedt s coming here. 1 Gerd von Rundstedt is more than the forum can handle *Again, only Spongebob fans will get the joke* Hey, that's not true. More Gerd von Rundstedt is alwas welcome. My point was that satirical content tend to be more contrarian rather than simply plain information, therefore it tends to get more attention,just like how i structured my second point . It can also lead to discussions over to the more serious threads. Happened a lot in GCR and EW6 1804 before, where after a sarcasm contest, old threads that weren't touched would get comments, then the discussion would continue there. The discussion there, of course, would be about the topic. It's a case of catching attention vs retaining it. Satiric content is good at catching attention. Serious content is good at retaining it. We have a lot of serious content, but not much attention grabbing ones. Besides, how does one show their knowledge of a subject by making content meant to convincingly make fun of it? It's easy to write down facts, but can you write those facts in a way that can convincingly prove the opposite? As stated, it's basically a devil's advocate group. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Nov 28, 2021 6:29:44 GMT
Agree on the first part. Totally disagree on the second. You say that - " let's say one makes an analysis of an item no one cares about. Then no one would still care about it, might be interesting if it has hidden value, but at the end of the day it won't be remembered." Alright. What's the use of making guides which no one cares about and also, making a group on that is my point The purpose of making Scholars, Guide editors is that people can recognize that their members had made a lot of quality guides and provide worthy information. No one wants to others to recognize as the person who makes lot of "extremely satirical guides about which no one cares." Moreover, I don't also want many Gerd von Rundstedt s coming here. 1 Gerd von Rundstedt is more than the forum can handle *Again, only Spongebob fans will get the joke* Hey, that's not true. More Gerd von Rundstedt is alwas welcome. My point was that satirical content tend to be more contrarian rather than simply plain information, therefore it tends to get more attention,just like how i structured my second point . It can also lead to discussions over to the more serious threads. Happened a lot in GCR and EW6 1804 before, where after a sarcasm contest, old threads that weren't touched would get comments, then the discussion would continue there. The discussion there, of course, would be about the topic. It's a case of catching attention vs retaining it. Satiric content is good at catching attention. Serious content is good at retaining it. We have a lot of serious content, but not much attention grabbing ones. Besides, how does one show their knowledge of a subject by making content meant to convincingly make fun of it? It's easy to write down facts, but can you write those facts in a way that can convincingly prove the opposite? As stated, it's basically a devil's advocate group. If I'm not wrong, you debate a lot in your real life. Serious debates. Only they can manipulate as beautifully as your line "just like how I structured my second point". Of course I can disagree with that line, but the way you put it doesn't make me want to. I'm not totally convinced yet, but thumbs up from my side Let's see how this works out. I can write some short satirical posts, but can't keep continuing if it's a very long post, so I might learn something new. |
|
|
|
Post by Nhyjj on Nov 28, 2021 6:48:53 GMT
DeletedSarcasm and Satire? Iโm In!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 7:01:22 GMT
Hey, that's not true. More Gerd von Rundstedt is alwas welcome. My point was that satirical content tend to be more contrarian rather than simply plain information, therefore it tends to get more attention,just like how i structured my second point . It can also lead to discussions over to the more serious threads. Happened a lot in GCR and EW6 1804 before, where after a sarcasm contest, old threads that weren't touched would get comments, then the discussion would continue there. The discussion there, of course, would be about the topic. It's a case of catching attention vs retaining it. Satiric content is good at catching attention. Serious content is good at retaining it. We have a lot of serious content, but not much attention grabbing ones. Besides, how does one show their knowledge of a subject by making content meant to convincingly make fun of it? It's easy to write down facts, but can you write those facts in a way that can convincingly prove the opposite? As stated, it's basically a devil's advocate group. If I'm not wrong, you debate a lot in your real life. Serious debates. Only they can manipulate as beautifully as your line "just like how I structured my second point". Of course I can disagree with that line, but the way you put it doesn't make me want to. I'm not totally convinced yet, but thumbs up from my side Let's see how this works out. I can write some short satirical posts, but can't keep continuing if it's a very long post, so I might learn something new. I mean,i'm not really a lawyer(yet), but i do public speaking and debates from time to time. It's much harder to convince others online than in real life, because in real life, getting a baseline on others is much easier by observing nonverbal cues. Online, i can only go with what i think i know,which is not something i recommend. Definitely get more information before winging it. Also, that wasn't manipulation,more of " proving the point by getting the other to prove it." Wasn't that clean really, a clean one would be much more subtle, and me not having to point it out. I was also trying to convince others along the way. That stuff aside, don't worry, it's nothing too serious . |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Nov 28, 2021 7:04:57 GMT
If I'm not wrong, you debate a lot in your real life. Serious debates. Only they can manipulate as beautifully as your line "just like how I structured my second point". Of course I can disagree with that line, but the way you put it doesn't make me want to. I'm not totally convinced yet, but thumbs up from my side Let's see how this works out. I can write some short satirical posts, but can't keep continuing if it's a very long post, so I might learn something new. I mean,i'm not really a lawyer(yet), but i do public speaking and debates from time to time. It's much harder to convince others online than in real life, because in real life, getting a baseline on others is much easier by observing nonverbal cues. Online, i can only go with what i think i know,which is not something i recommend. Definitely get more information before winging it. Also, that wasn't manipulation,more of " proving the point by getting the other to prove it." Wasn't that clean really, a clean one would be much more subtle, and me not having to point it out. I was also trying to convince others along the way. That stuff aside, don't worry, it's nothing too serious . Of course, no one can ever relate you and serious. And Nhyjj, did you just change your status? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 7:21:51 GMT
I mean,i'm not really a lawyer(yet), but i do public speaking and debates from time to time. It's much harder to convince others online than in real life, because in real life, getting a baseline on others is much easier by observing nonverbal cues. Online, i can only go with what i think i know,which is not something i recommend. Definitely get more information before winging it. Also, that wasn't manipulation,more of " proving the point by getting the other to prove it." Wasn't that clean really, a clean one would be much more subtle, and me not having to point it out. I was also trying to convince others along the way. That stuff aside, don't worry, it's nothing too serious . Of course, no one can ever relate you and serious. And Nhyjj , did you just change your status? He just did. |
|
|
|
Post by Saltin on Nov 29, 2021 2:48:24 GMT
If you got the members that want in and want to participate then that's all that's needed to start a new group.
If it's to be a closed group (by invitation only) then it might be good to have an alternate leader from the very start though, i noticed that sometimes when the designated group leader is afk from the forum then there are issues adding newer members in.
|
|
.
