Marks list

[PanzarFather]

Since Mark locked the previous thread before I had time to answer his long list of demands to accept a discord-call, I thought I would go through my answers on the list here instead.

The following quotes are from Mark on his is from his list..

Here is the whole list

MarKr wrote: ↑22 Nov 2020, 14:20
That depends...are you willing to act like an adult and:
- start using logical arguments?
- accept that proofs have more weight than your feelings?
- stay on topic instead of jumping from one to another?
- consider that what others tell you might be right, instead of dismissing them outright when they disagree with you?
- stop coming up with nonsense conspiration theories?
- stop lying about me being unfair to you from the start?
- stop lying about being punished for criticising the game?
- stop twisting what I said?

I will now go through each point:

- start using logical arguments?

It depends on what you mean with "logical arguments". In my mind, my arguments are logical. So I say YES, that I will use logical arguments.

- accept that proofs have more weight than your feelings?

Yes I can accept proofs over my feelings of the game.
I also want to suggest that if Mark is going to hate people who express their experience and feeling about the game, and instead only want corsix-proofs, then he should be clear to the community that people are not allowed to express what they feel about the game at all in this forum.
People should then only be allowed to express themselves if they can present evidence of every single statement with corsix.

- stay on topic instead of jumping from one to another?

I try to stay as much on each topic as possible, that is what I trying to do now by creating this post and going through each single demand on your list. I can say "yes" that I will keep try to stay on each topic as much as possible.
I don't know any example where I haven't.

consider that what others tell you might be right, instead of dismissing them outright when they disagree with you?

I see this as an very emotional accusation towards me from Marks part, and I don't agree on this fallacy that I behave this way. I am stubborn, yes, but so is Mark for what I've seen.
NEVER have I've seen or hear him consider that what I say might be right. Instead, it feels like he always disagree, no matter what I say.

I can say "yes" to that I as a person am able to admit when I'm wrong. Is mark capable of that?

stop coming up with nonsense conspiration theories?

Sure.

stop lying about me being unfair to you from the start?

I can say "yes" that I won't lie about anything.
Quoting Wikipedia:
"A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving someone"

It is not a "lie" that my experience with Mark from the start was unfair. This was my honest experience.

The first thing he texted me was a warning, which I thought was unfair, BECAUSE he was more strict with me and less strict with others in that conversation breaking same rules/simulair rules. <-- This is a logical explination on WHY I experience it to be unfair btw, since Mark asked/demanded logical answers from me.

Further, I don't think Mark was rude towards me when he and me tested the BETA together 1v1, but I don't think he was that open minded. It felt more like he was 100% convinced that there was no unbalance in the BETA stage, and that he wanted to "prove" it to me when we tried it out, rather than just trying it together and looking through things objectivly and discuss it.

stop lying about being punished for criticising the game?

Again, I am not lying. But if Mark is completely convinced that this was not the case, then I am willing to accept it at the moment, we'll see if there is any truth to it in the conversation with him. I guess "yes", lol.

stop twisting what I said?

Yes I won't twist anything you say in purpose.

When can we have the call?

[PanzarFather]

..

[MarKr]

It depends on what you mean with "logical arguments". In my mind, my arguments are logical. So I say YES, that I will use logical arguments.

Good start.

Yes I can accept proofs over my feelings of the game.

Nice to hear.

I also want to suggest that if Mark is going to hate people who express their experience and feeling about the game, and instead only want corsix-proofs, then he should be clear to the community that people are not allowed to express what they feel about the game at all in this forum.
People should then only be allowed to express themselves if they can present evidence of every single statement with corsix.

It is absolutely fine that people report things here based on their in-game impressions/FEELINGS. Then we check the game DATA (a.k.a "FACTS") to see if the facts support the feelings. If the facts support what people reported based on their feelings/impressions", we'll take a look at it and fix it. However, if the facts DON'T support the feelings/impressions, you should accept it not keep saying that your feelings are right because at that point you are saying that FEELINGS are more than FACTS.

I am sorry if that is how you FEEL it is but I have NEVER said that players are not allowed to express what they feel about the game. Aaaand there you go, twisting what I said.

Yes I won't twist anything you say in purpose.

So this is not true already.

I can say "yes" that I will keep try to stay on each topic as much as possible.

I have examples from the time you joined the Discord server. I may put them here later but printscreening all that stuff and then cropping it takes time which I don't know if I want to invest into this.

I see this as an very emotional accusation towards me from Marks part, and I don't agree on this fallacy that I behave this way.

Just look at the original thread where this "discussion" started - several people told you that your accusations of me hating you for no reason are off. Your reaction? Instead of at least allowing the option they might be right, you just go with some post on why it MIGHT be true if (whatever theory).

NEVER have I've seen or hear him consider that what I say might be right. Instead, it feels like he always disagree, no matter what I say.

Because absolute majority of what you say is based on your FEELINGS. And guess what? Whenever you bring up something new I check the game data to see if what you say matches the data or not. If I didn't consider the option you might be right, I wouldn't even check the game files. When the data is checked, I come back and tell you what I found. It feels that I never agree with you but it is only because your claims (most often based on in-game FEELINGS) extremely rarely check with the PROOFS.

Is mark capable of that?

He is if the claims prove to be true.

It is not a "lie" that my experience with Mark from the start was unfair. This was my honest experience.

Just to be sure..."from the start" means from our first encounter - this is not a debatable thing, that is what "from the start" means in this case.

Oh look! My first message on the Discord channel where I reacted to you and thus our "first encounter":

Making sure I understand your standpoint by asking a question...I am sooo unfair here.

What was the second time I reacted to you? Oh here:

So what happened here...
1) You make a comparison of penetration chances of Axis 75mm L46 against SP and the 17 pounder vs SP and based on that you call "AT guns of allies are OP"
(this would a be good example of illogical argument because you were comparing 2 AT guns of completely different tiers)
2) I inform you that it makes no sense to compare the two AT guns as they are of different tier
3) You make a surprised exclamation that the PaK43 is back in the game because you thought that it was deleted (even when it wasn't deleted)
(this is a good example of you going off topic because the topic was illogical comparison of certain AT guns of different tiers, not availability of PaK43)
4) kwok also confirming the information of different tier of those guns + adding the information that the PaK43 is still available in Def doc as it always had been + tries to stay on the AT gun performance topic by saying that 17 pounders/90mm guns are mounted on relatively small number of tanks while some version of 88mm is mounted on almost every Axis heavy tank
5) to which you reply that there is a difference between 88mm Flak36 and PaK43 and repeat that Def doc no longer has PaK43 (which isn't true)
6) I add to what kwok said about heavy guns mounted on large number of Axis tanks and TD
7) You say "Elefant should be unpenetrable on the frontal armor"
(again example of diverting the topic - it was originally "AT guns of Allies are stronger" btw)
Then you keep claiming that PaK43 isn't there, we prove you it IS there, you just don't know where...I can provide the screens but is it really needed?

Further, I don't think Mark was rude towards me when he and me tested the BETA together 1v1, but I don't think he was that open minded. It felt more like he was 100% convinced that there was no unbalance in the BETA stage, and that he wanted to "prove" it to me when we tried it out, rather than just trying it together and looking through things objectivly and discuss it.

I already said that I wasn't trying to prove to you that the beta was "balanced" (we actually said officially that we knew the beta wasn't perfectly balanced). However, I was trying to prove to you that Allies were not as OP as YOU claimed them to be.

At the same time your behavior on Discord felt more like you were 100% convinced that there Allies were brutally OP. So if in your eyes I was "not that open minded" because it felt like I was 100% convinced of something...By your own logic, doesn't that mean that you were not that open minded because it felt like you were 100% convinced of something?

By the way, the difference is that I disproved to you in the game pretty much every "allies are OP" scenario you wanted to try out, so I had no reason to change my opinion because you didn't prove to me I was wrong, at the same time you didn't change your mind even when you received a practical demonstration of being wrong on your claims...so...who wasn't open minded?

we'll see if there is any truth to it in the conversation with him.

I already talked about this many times. I don't think you'll ever see it as justified simply because punished people very rarely see that their punishment was deserved. Whatever...

When can we have the call?

Given that you've already broken the "no twisting what was said" thing...probably not any time soon.

[PanzarFather]

This feels like an never ending shitshow haha.

Given that you've already broken the "no twisting what was said" thing...probably not any time soon.

So you were just trolling me, in order to try to make me bend over for you on this forum?

If you read carefully what I wrote, I quote again:

Yes I won't twist anything you say in purpose.

Note that I don't intensionally twist anything on purpose.

As I understand it, part of the reason why you dislike me because I made statements that were based on my experiences and feelings about the game, instead of coming up with arguments that were solid after checking out the corsix program.

If you interpret it as if I am deliberately trying to twist what you say, then it is only your interpretation, not the real truth about my intention behind what I say.

I am sorry if that is how you FEEL it is but I have NEVER said that players are not allowed to express what they feel about the game. Aaaand there you go, twisting what I said.

I think you twisted a lot of what I did and said on your 10-top list of why you dislike me. It will be an endless reply if I have to go through all of that too. But I can sum up that it is to twist everything I have done and said to make it sound legitimate to dislike me. You make me look like I was a person who just got on your discord channel and completely ignored your rules, pissed you in the face and started throwing wild accusations that you wanted to ruin the game and in addition demanded to take over the mod myself. It's not that black and white mister. This interpretation of me shows that you are inclined to twist things just as you accuse me of doing.

How can we move futher in this anthill of mistrust, arguments, different types of evidence of who said what?
If we can both say openly that we do not want to try to twist what the other is saying on purpose, can you then join a voicecall-conversation or are you going to invent new escapes? The purpose of a discord-call is to avoid this lengthy drama. Text is definitely not the best way to try to sort things out, even if you have time to write everything down in peace and quiet, texts can be misinterpreted. Voice-calls show more dimensions of communication that text doesn't such as the tone of voice and the direct response make everything easier. I feel that I need to answer you here so far because it is the only platform I can do it on now, and that you should write long outlays about things that go unanswered make me appear as if I have no answer, which I definitely have. It looks like you just want to sit and write long memoirs about how mean I am as a person instead of coming up with constructive solutions, something I have called for several times now. This is what I mean by maybe it would be time to take a voicecall as an adult.

[MarKr]

I could again go through it and point at all the things I disagree with and all the arguments that are just off but as you said - it feels like a never ending shitshow (look we agree on something! lol).

I think that talking over Discord won't solve anything because it will simply go in the exact same way as it's been going here so far and just as we haven't reached any conclusion in this discussion, we won't reach any in a voice-talk.

If you wanna tell me something, do it here. If you don't wanna talk about it publicly, then it's probably not all that important.

If you wanna make some posts about the game, you're free to do so unless you break local rules, if you can keep it civil in long term and I'll see some positive change in your behavior, my attitude towards you may improve over time. That's all I have to say for now.