Should Real Time be disabled for solo games?

[tbhp]

In that case you answered a newbie’s question in an extremely misleading way, deliberately as you acknowledged. Now, you can engage in name-calling against all of us who have complained (and I do take offense to your insult, I am putting you on notice), but remember the old adage: when everyone is against you, consider that it may be you who are wrong, not them.

The deliberate action was to not answer their question and instead explain why they should not concede without asking. I certainly didn't intend it to be misleading, and here you are defending Ceaseless who apparently was the only one finding it misleading (then other users took his side because people here seem to like jumping on the hate bandwagon against me).

It may, or not. The old adage is not a good way to think as it just encourages people to follow the status quo rather than think for themselves. The majority is not always right, especially when it's more interested in targeting an individual than in engaging ideas.

[tbhp]

Point is, for a friendly mode game (hotseat or solo), there is no reason to set it to real time. It just makes no sense to set a friendly mode game to real time. I didn't even realize this was even an option until my friend and colleague noticed it.

One of the benefits of playing solo or friendly is: no timers. So why set it to real time and have it end after 4 hours of inactivity?

I would say it's the same reason you would play against other people in real time: you want the game to be over within a certain time frame. It's just a pre-established agreement (in this case with yourself).

You may say: but it's better to set it to turn based so that then you have more time if you change your mind or have an emergency or something. Sure, but then you lose out on the experience of playing a real time solo game. And the fact that things are uncertain and that you may not have the time to make your moves properly is a very integral part of that experience, after all.

You could just as well ask: why do some video games have sequences where you have a timer? What is the point since you are on your own? It's just part of the challenge.

[BarnardsStar]

I certainly didn't intend it to be misleading

Well, that’s good, I guess. I can’t read your mind so I suppose I will take your word on that. But it was still misleading, and you seem to be incapable of admitting that. (Now that I say that I cannot thing of any instance where you have admitted to being wrong or that somebody else had a good point you hadn’t considered.) And that leads us to statements like this:

and here you are defending Ceaseless who apparently was the only one finding it misleading (then other users took his side because people here seem to like jumping on the hate bandwagon against me).

Apparently it’s not possible to genuinely agree with other people if they are against you. These apparently are not my actual opinions; I’m just jumping on a bandwagon motivated by animosity of you. SMH.

It may, or not. The old adage is not a good way to think as it just encourages people to follow the status quo rather than think for themselves. The majority is not always right, especially when it's more interested in targeting an individual than in engaging ideas.

Oh, I see. You are a true genius and iconoclast, rebelling against a status quo that demands clarity in communication, communicating in new and novel ways that the rest of us are wrong to take issue with and incapable of understanding. SMDH.

[nik592]

Ceaseless who apparently was the only one finding it misleading (then other users took his side because people here seem to like jumping on the hate bandwagon against me).

Yeah, no, I'm perfectly capable of having my own issues with your statements. I don't need a bandwagon, thanks. Just because I don't call you out immediately doesn't mean I didn't agree. Sometimes life is busy and I don't get on the forums. Sometimes I let others carry the argument rather than just jumping on and saying "me too!". I don't recall why I took a couple days to get into that discussion, but please let me assure you that my feelings are absolutely all mine and nothing to do with anyone else's opinions. Hope that helps (doubtful, but just want to be sure you understand).

[Meeplelowda]

So this is what I see when this user posts something. Of course, if someone else quotes them I'm exposed to them.

I'm all for healthy debate. I don't block people merely because I disagree with them. As BarnardsStar pointed out, they never admit that anything they say is wrong or that anyone who doesn't 100% agree with them has a valid point. [If anyone who isn't this person wants to call me out on this issue, I can link to threads where I've conceded I was wrong.] So this user does not actually want to engage in debate and does not demonstrate that they actually know what that means. I came to realize this when I posted an anonymized, but real, DM chat I had with someone, and then they responded with a fabricated conversation.

From the snippets of their quoted posts I can see, it seems that they are now trotting out the "everyone's against me" persecution card. But from what I can observe (I can't know for sure), they actually enjoy the attention their contrarian positions garner. It is a feature, not a bug. It seems like they are just playing a character who believes the things they are saying, similar to how Stephen Colbert played the character of a conservative talk show host. So really it's just feeding a troll.

[tbhp]

For anyone who might read, the point of a debate is for people to sincerely exchange their opinions. Nothing says that one or more participants must change their opinion at some point. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. The important thing is that everyone remains sincere in what they express and believe.

I'm not sure if the claim that I've never changed my opinion on anything on here is correct. It's not like I keep track of the numbers or anything. And if it is correct, then in that case it just means I have opinions that are unlikely to be changed, probably because they are well thought out or other people haven't managed to bring up convincing counter arguments. So if anything, it should be motivation for you to come up with better arguments! Or maybe make an effort yourself to acknowledge when you are wrong. Because for what it's worth, I don't have much recollection of you all changing your views in any of those hotly debated topics either. Everyone always seems dead set on their positions in those types of discussions.

[BarnardsStar]

In the really really really long thread about conceding on the last turn (the one that went more than 20 pages), I in fact did change my mind (more than once) about aspects of conceding as other pointed matters out.

And on two occasions that I can think of when somebody has said they found a comment of mine insulting I have apologized for that. Tbhp, when I tell you I found your comments insulting, all I get are crickets.

And never ever ever changing your mind is a sign of recalcitrance and stubbornness. It does not mean you have well-thought out your ideas. It simply means you are unwilling to listen to others. Everybody thinks they are usually right; it’s natural. People who think they are always right? Well, that ain’t right.

When it is combined with a tendency for one-ups-manship, it leads us to statements like you would rather suffer bodily harm than have a game conceded, or that a game of Wingspan is High Art for the ages.

I think Meeplowda probably has the right idea here.

[tbhp]

Tbhp, when I tell you I found your comments insulting, all I get are crickets.

What am I supposed to say to that? The fact you find it insulting doesn't change that it is what I believe. You finding a point insulting isn't magically going to make someone change their mind on that point. That's not how life works.

I would say I find it a bit ridiculous that you would feel insulted by someone saying something like that. You should have more confidence in your thinking abilities and not let yourself be affected by what people say.

I find the complaint a bit surprising coming from you, but then again this seems to be in line with how several otherwise respectable posters on here have disappointed me in the past with their views and with how easily offended they can be at times.

It might be a cultural thing to some extent, as maybe in France we are more liberated in how we speak and in how debate is what drives us rather than caring about what other people's language might imply about us.

There's also the fact that what constitutes left leaning in the US and other English speaking countries can correspond to what we consider the traditional right in France, so this can create a disconnect too. The defense of capitalism and of conformism that I see so often in this forum would be a big no no in French leftist circles.

Anyway, I hope this can help put some context on why those communication issues may be happening. I'm certainly not intending to "troll" like Meeplelowda suggested, and I also wish those discussions could be smoother. But like I said, it's important that people remain themselves when discussing. I think the key is not taking it too much to heart when people say things that might bother us, and try to keep things friendly.

[BarnardsStar]

I’ll be following Meeplelowda’s lead now, I think. You obviously have no intention to listen to what others are saying, and I can’t decide if you are a troll or a narcissist (though the sudden diatribe against capitalism, which I don’t recall defending or even bringing up, suggests the former) but either way, it’s not worth my time to figure out.

[Cile]

especially when it's more interested in targeting an individual than in engaging ideas.

So tell me, are these quotes from someone engaging in ideas, or targeting an individual:

That sounds like an extremely backwards argument again (not surprising coming from you).

Why do you always take the defense of the people who are doing nothing or are doing something wrong?