[magilla]

RudolphHess posted:

If I was going to make grandiose claims about cheaters' behaviour and how it is backed by peer reviewed scientific studies and how I am also a psychologist, I would:

1. Use proper grammar and punctuation. People are much more likely to believe you have a degree if you can communicate effectively.

2. Link to the said studies or refer to the journals in which they were published. In academia this is called referencing. Please note that if a study has been peer reviewed it will be published somewhere.

3. Not link to Business News Daily or The Huffington Post as neither of those are scientific journals.

4. Make sure that the studies were at least searchable in academic libraries. http://imgur.com/RwQT26q
Which it's not, either by title or author.

5. Not have a post history that displays xenophobia and bigotry.

1. actually, i have communicated with proper grammar and punctuation. i have merely neglected to hold down the shift key. i am not interested in enforcing my credibility, or i would have typed properly. this is a leisurely mode of typing for me.

your fallacy: you assume i am trying to push my credibility. truth: i could care less if you truly believe that i am who i say i am on an internet forum.

2. fallacy number one down. number two is here, as expected. read the rest of that thread. as you'll see, i was away from access to databases. these were links to articles that referenced studies with which i was familiar (all i could provide at the time.) if you had read many academic articles, you would know that they are often not publicly displayed (you need access to a database.)

3. see above.

4. "metalib" is like "jstor" in that it is an academic library, but is not composed of every single peer reviewed study in the world. that would be insane.

5. how does xenophobia correlate with credibility, in an entirely unrelated argument? this borders on ad hominem and is also fallacious.

[J!NX]

magilla posted:

1. actually, i have communicated with proper grammar and punctuation. i have merely neglected to hold down the shift key. i am not interested in enforcing my credibility, or i would have typed properly. this is a leisurely mode of typing for me.

your fallacy: you assume i am trying to push my credibility. truth: i could care less if you truly believe that i am who i say i am on an internet forum.

2. fallacy number one down. number two is here, as expected. read the rest of that thread. as you'll see, i was away from access to databases. these were links to articles that referenced studies with which i was familiar (all i could provide at the time.) if you had read many academic articles, you would know that they are often not publicly displayed (you need access to a database.)

3. see above.

4. "metalib" is like "jstor" in that it is an academic library, but is not composed of every single peer reviewed study in the world. that would be insane.

5. how does xenophobia correlate with credibility, in an entirely unrelated argument? this borders on ad hominem and is also fallacious.

Because people who are xenophobic and bigoted are usually extremely ignorant people who are incredibly biased in many ways

How do you expect anyone to take you serious with bigoted posts and when you claim the shit that you have claimed?

Your ignorance is masked by the facade that you are intellectually superior and "Educated" and try to claim others emotional bias have other bias. So what? you're logical? Logical people don't claim that an eye for an eye works and aren't xenophobic.

[RudolphHess]

magilla posted:

4. "metalib" is like "jstor" in that it is an academic library, but is not composed of every single peer reviewed study in the world. that would be insane.

You'll be happy to hear that CrossSearch searches JSTOR and 9 other Academic Libraries. If you prefer I can set it to search the 8 Psychology databases available but you'll be disappointed because it's not there either.

What you've done here is confused an undergraduate's Honours Thesis with a scholar's research piece published in a reputable journal. Quite the glaring error from such a learned man.

[magilla]

J!NX posted:

Because people who are xenophobic and bigoted are usually extremely ignorant people who are incredibly biased in many ways

How do you expect anyone to take you serious with bigoted posts and when you claim the shit that you have claimed?

Your ignorance is masked by the facade that you are intellectually superior and "Educated" and try to claim others emotional bias have other bias. So what? you're logical? Logical people don't claim that an eye for an eye works and aren't xenophobic.

that is a generalized, subjective, and opinionated statement with no real evidence.

because the posts that that you are referring to have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

facade? i merely made reference to my profession. also, i have been rather unbiased in my core argument at hand, allowing me the ability to judge the bias of others ON THIS TOPIC.

you last statement is subjective and opinionated with no backing. xenophobia does not necessarily defy logic. and even if it did, again, it has nothing to do with the topic.

as for hammurabi's code.. i never said that it WORKS. i said that in current times, were it implemented globally, it would most likely lead to a crime-sterile society. that is an analysis.

it is not:

me backing the code
me saying it would work immediately
me saying people should be happy with that
me saying people would enjoy it
me saying it's great and we should try it

i have to spell it out this much, so that you don't type general assumptions repeatedly? lol.

[J!NX]

magilla posted:

that is a generalized, subjective, and opinionated statement with no real evidence.

because the posts that that you are referring to have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

facade? i merely made reference to my profession. also, i have been rather unbiased in my core argument at hand, allowing me the ability to judge the bias of others ON THIS TOPIC.

you last statement is subjective and opinionated with no backing. xenophobia does not necessarily defy logic. and even if it did, again, it has nothing to do with the topic.

as for hammurabi's code.. i never said that it WORKS. i said that in current times, were it implemented globally, it would most likely lead to a crime-sterile society. that is an analysis.

it is not:

me backing the code
me saying it would work immediately
me saying people should be happy with that
me saying people would enjoy it
me saying it's great and we should try it

i have to spell it out this much, so that you don't type general assumptions repeatedly? lol.

You literally JUST SAID that you assume that the code would work, and you're trying to say I'm making an assumption.

That's more than just an "Analysis". If you ACTUALLY had analysed it you would know for a fact that it would do exactly the opposite and cause a crime uproar.

[magilla]

J!NX posted:

You literally JUST SAID that you assume that the code would work, and you're trying to say I'm making an assumption.

That's more than just an "Analysis". If you ACTUALLY had analysed it you would know for a fact that it would do exactly the opposite and cause a crime uproar.

" Logical people don't claim that an eye for an eye works"

do you even understand how the meaning of/how important past, present, & future tenses are?

[J!NX]

magilla posted:

" Logical people don't claim that an eye for an eye works"

do you even understand how the meaning of/how important past, present, & future tenses are?

that doesn't even make ANY sense

You do realize saying "If it" STILL pretty much means you say you support the idea? You believe it would work. You assume based on "Analysis" that "If it were" applied globally that it work work.

You're REALLY backpedelling hard, what an embarrassing thing to do.

magilla posted:

that's your opinion. making a crime harsher makes a criminal less likely to commit said crime, does it not?

magilla posted:

actually, an eye for an eye does work exceptionally. in those civilizations, crime was only rampant because of how hard it was to detect. in today's society, if such a policy existed, crime would be virtually nonexistent. i could pull an article on this as well. (not that i agree of course. i believe in rights, after all.)

magilla posted:

as for hammurabi's code.. i never said that it WORKS. i said that in current times, were it implemented globally, it would most likely lead to a crime-sterile society. that is an analysis.

it is not:

me backing the code
me saying it would work immediately
me saying people should be happy with that
me saying people would enjoy it
me saying it's great and we should try it

now you're trying to claim you didn't say that "an eye for an eye does work"

you said that "IT DOES WORK" and "in today's society, if such a policy existed, crime would be virtually nonexistent" VERY clearly.

[magilla]

RudolphHess posted:

You'll be happy to hear that CrossSearch searches JSTOR and 9 other Academic Libraries. If you prefer I can set it to search the 8 Psychology databases available but you'll be disappointed because it's not there either.

What you've done here is confused an undergraduate's Honours Thesis with a scholar's research piece published in a reputable journal. Quite the glaring error from such a learned man.

sorry, i did not have the time to jump back to my original post until now.

"i am not at my office, so i can't log into our database. this article documents and gives the title of a familiar study by the university of minnesota:
Youths displaying the same behaviors:
http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/362...t-workers.html "

lol you had me wondering for a second on that one, but now i recall never originally claiming that this one was peer reviewed. simply a convincing study. i read so many different forms of information throughout the day that it is easy to blur the lines (especially in arguments that have no real win or loss.)

Edited:

J!NX posted:

that doesn't even make ANY sense

You do realize saying "If it" STILL pretty much means you say you support the idea? You believe it would work. You assume based on "Analysis" that "If it were" applied globally that it work work.

You're REALLY backpedelling hard, what an embarrassing thing to do.

backpedaling?

you claimed that i argued that hammurabi's code works. it does not work, because in its current state it is not accepted as the societal norm.

my argument was that in time, with societal adjustment, the implementation would quell crime and quite arguably be successful, albeit unacceptable.

there is a huge separation there that you're not getting. do i need to flip the light switch for you, as well?

[J!NX]

magilla posted:

backpedaling?

you claimed that i argued that hammurabi's code works. it does not work, because in its current state it is not accepted as the societal norm.

my argument was that in time, with societal adjustment, the implementation would quell crime and quite arguably be successful, albeit unacceptable.

there is a huge separation there that you're not getting. do i need to flip the light switch for you, as well?

magilla posted:

actually, an eye for an eye does work exceptionally. in those civilizations, crime was only rampant because of how hard it was to detect. in today's society, if such a policy existed, crime would be virtually nonexistent. i could pull an article on this as well. (not that i agree of course. i believe in rights, after all.)

magilla posted:

you claimed that i argued that hammurabi's code works. it does not work, because in its current state it is not accepted as the societal norm.

magilla posted:

an eye for an eye does work exceptionally.

Oh my fucking god, this is just icing in the cake. and you do realize that "not that I agree" is kind of pointless, if you didn't agree with eye for an eye then how the hell can you say it would work? that doesn't even make ANY sense.

You are the biggest joke of a "psychologist" I have seen in my life.

lets post all the quotes as you have clearly said for everyone to see

magilla posted:

that's your opinion. making a crime harsher makes a criminal less likely to commit said crime, does it not?

magilla posted:

actually, an eye for an eye does work exceptionally. in those civilizations, crime was only rampant because of how hard it was to detect. in today's society, if such a policy existed, crime would be virtually nonexistent. i could pull an article on this as well. (not that i agree of course. i believe in rights, after all.)

magilla posted:

as for hammurabi's code.. i never said that it WORKS. i said that in current times, were it implemented globally, it would most likely lead to a crime-sterile society. that is an analysis.

it is not:

me backing the code
me saying it would work immediately
me saying people should be happy with that
me saying people would enjoy it
me saying it's great and we should try it

magilla posted:

backpedaling?

you claimed that i argued that hammurabi's code works. it does not work, because in its current state it is not accepted as the societal norm.

my argument was that in time, with societal adjustment, the implementation would quell crime and quite arguably be successful, albeit unacceptable.

there is a huge separation there that you're not getting. do i need to flip the light switch for you, as well?

magilla posted:

so thinking something works, in your mind, means that you agree with it? the holocaust WORKED to damage the jewish population. do you agree? then you support the holocaust (your laughable logic.)

also, it's savor, not savior. the only icing that i see is, amidst your futile attempt at logical discussion, you can not even distinguish between simple english words.

imagine of Magilla ran facepunch

bans for trolling would be 1 month to perma for first offenses, instead of 3 days "because making a crime harsher makes a criminal less likely to commit said crime"

[Kirbunny431]

Oh my gosh magilla what are you even talking about?

[RudolphHess]

magilla posted:

but now i recall never originally claiming that this one was peer reviewed. simply a convincing study.

you'll find the thread where i posted links that cite peer reviewed scholarly articles

You should have a rest, your legs will be getting tired from all that back-pedalling.

The article you linked doesn't link to the study, which was, I repeat, an undergraduate's Honours Thesis. It stretches credulity that your office database has access to all Honours Theses from the University of Minnesota, never mind that you actually read this particular "form of information".

[LordCrypto]

magilla posted:

sorry, i did not have the time to jump back to my original post until now.

"i am not at my office, so i can't log into our database. this article documents and gives the title of a familiar study by the university of minnesota:
Youths displaying the same behaviors:
http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/362...t-workers.html "

lol you had me wondering for a second on that one, but now i recall never originally claiming that this one was peer reviewed. simply a convincing study. i read so many different forms of information throughout the day that it is easy to blur the lines (especially in arguments that have no real win or loss.)

Edited:



backpedaling?

you claimed that i argued that hammurabi's code works. it does not work, because in its current state it is not accepted as the societal norm.

my argument was that in time, with societal adjustment, the implementation would quell crime and quite arguably be successful, albeit unacceptable.

there is a huge separation there that you're not getting. do i need to flip the light switch for you, as well?

holy shit

this is a video game

when did we start discussing legal systems

[lolo]

Magilla, go take a break and think about everything you just said.

There are soo many contradictions, just enough to fill a 18 wheeler.

[Protocol7]

idonthinkso posted:

i dont care because "once a cheater, always a cheater"

hi yeah it's me, the guy who hadn't been vac banned in ~1200 days. yeah that number has gone up to 1246 now. please tell me how I'm not VAC banned from Rust because I'm obviously still a cheater. thanks!

[magilla]

J!NX posted:

Oh my fucking god, this is just icing in the cake. and you do realize that "not that I agree" is kind of pointless, if you didn't agree with eye for an eye then how the hell can you say it would work? that doesn't even make ANY sense.

You are the biggest joke of a "psychologist" I have seen in my life.

Lets savior this moment and post all the quotes as you have clearly said for everyone to see






imagine of Magilla ran facepunch

bans for trolling would be 1 month to perma for first offenses, instead of 3 days "because making a crime harsher makes a criminal less likely to commit said crime"

so thinking something works, in your mind, means that you agree with it? the holocaust WORKED to damage the jewish population. do you agree? then you support the holocaust (your laughable logic.)

also, it's savor, not savior. the only icing that i see is, amidst your futile attempt at logical discussion, you can not even distinguish between simple english words.

Edited:

RudolphHess posted:

You should have a rest, your legs will be getting tired from all that back-pedalling.

The article you linked doesn't link to the study, which was, I repeat, an undergraduate's Honours Thesis. It stretches credulity that your office database has access to all Honours Theses from the University of Minnesota, never mind that you actually read this particular "form of information".

what? i just acknowledged that this was a study. one with much attention, but a study.

[J!NX]

magilla posted:

so thinking something works, in your mind, means that you agree with it? the holocaust WORKED to damage the jewish population. do you agree? then you support the holocaust (your laughable logic.)

also, it's savor, not savior. the only icing that i see is, amidst your futile attempt at logical discussion, you can not even distinguish between simple english words.

Now you're even breaking godwins law

If I said "The holocaust helped Germany" it would be more akin to "in today's society, if such a policy existed, crime would be virtually nonexistent."

Everyone agrees that the holocaust worked in killing jews, that was kind of the point. I don't even know why you're bringing up a nazi analogy *Which is extremely laughable*, I don't support that shit at all.

"the holocaust WORKED to damage the jewish population."

and "in today's society, if such a policy existed, crime would be virtually nonexistent."

isn't even close. Do you even understand how the meaning of/how important past, present, & future tenses are?

Also, you're ACTUALLY trying to hurt my credibility over a mistype word. Are you seriously this dumb?

You're trying to analyze me and trying to be a "Psychologist" but you're honestly really terrible at it. Your remarks are backed with zero evidence, and thrown like feces from the hands of an enraged primate.

[magilla]

J!NX posted:

Now you're even breaking godwins law

If I said "The holocaust helped Germany" it would be more akin to "in today's society, if such a policy existed, crime would be virtually nonexistent."

Everyone agrees that the holocaust worked in killing jews, that was kind of the point.

"the holocaust WORKED to damage the jewish population."

and "in today's society, if such a policy existed, crime would be virtually nonexistent."

isn't even close, and that wasn't' even my logic, period.

Also, you're ACTUALLY trying to hurt my credibility over a mistype word. Are you seriously this dumb?

You're trying to analyze me and trying to be a "Psychologist" but you're honestly really terrible at it. Your remarks are backed with zero evidence, and thrown like feces from the hands of an enraged primate.

haha nice quote recycle of mine, i like that.

godwin is hardly one to make laws, but of course a discussion would not be complete without an analogy involving one of the largest events in human history.

you misread and misrepresent again.

you said that i support hammurabi's. i said that there is a separation between the logical thought that something will work, and personal support of such a thing.

if you can't comprehend what someone else is saying, at least make an appropriate rebuttal by asking for clarity.

also i don't believe that was a mistype. i believe you didn't know the difference.

[J!NX]

magilla posted:

haha nice quote recycle of mine, i like that.

godwin is hardly one to make laws, but of course a discussion would not be complete without an analogy involving one of the largest events in human history.

you misread and misrepresent again.

you said that i support hammurabi's. i said that there is a separation between the logical thought that something will work, and personal support of such a thing.

if you can't comprehend what someone else is saying, at least make an appropriate rebuttal by asking for clarity.

also i don't believe that was a mistype. i believe you didn't know the difference.

there is literally no way you aren't trolling but either way I find everything you have said extremely amusing.

I really don't know what else to say, but man, did I have a laugh.

It's almost as if you are mashing out works onto your keyboard without even thinking about what you're saying or reading it.

[magilla]

J!NX posted:

there is literally no way you aren't trolling but either way I find everything you have said extremely amusing.

I really don't know what else to say, but man, did I have a laugh.

It's almost as if you are mashing out works onto your keyboard without even thinking about what you're saying or reading it.

life is a game in which humanity doubles as the pawn & the player.

(User was banned for this post ("admitted troll" - dai))

[RudolphHess]

magilla posted:

what? i just acknowledged that this was a study. one with much attention, but a study.

You claimed initially to cite "peer-reviewed scholarly articles". Neither of the links you supplied are peer-reviewed nor scholarly articles. One article on the World Business News or Huffington Post website does not equal "much attention". You are a disingenuous shit-poster.

[Protocol7]

magilla posted:

life is a game in which humanity doubles as the pawn & the player.

so is this basically the "XD I trolle u hahaha!" post, or

[Redswandir]

magilla posted:

life is a game in which humanity doubles as the pawn & the player.

no sorry you're wrong, this is not the sims, god doesn't sit down and dick around humanity

the striving goal of all life is to pass along it's genes and survive, in that order, and anything else is subjective, imposed on ourselves by ourselves, what we believe and choose to believe

if you want to bullshit you gotta know your shit first

[TV's Rob]

proof that rust drives men insane

[magilla]

RudolphHess posted:

You claimed initially to cite "peer-reviewed scholarly articles". Neither of the links you supplied are peer-reviewed nor scholarly articles. One article on the World Business News or Huffington Post website does not equal "much attention". You are a disingenuous shit-poster.

i posted those articles because, at the time, i did not have access to the actual articles referenced within those sites. please read that thread, which has little to do with this one.

Edited:

Protocol7 posted:

so is this basically the "XD I trolle u hahaha!" post, or

no.

[Corosive]

Ban the IP from Rust lol + the account

That way people can't buy new copies to cheat again.

Don't care if it is unfair, don't cheat. It should be against the law under the cyber bullying act, this is the age of the internet, most of us consider the internet part of our lifestyle.

[magilla]

Redswandir posted:

no sorry you're wrong, this is not the sims, god doesn't sit down and dick around humanity

the striving goal of all life is to pass along it's genes and survive, in that order, and anything else is subjective, imposed on ourselves by ourselves, what we believe and choose to believe

if you want to bullshit you gotta know your shit first

uhh are you claiming to know what whatever god you believe in intends for humanity? lol

Edited:

Corosive posted:

Ban the IP from Rust lol + the account

That way people can't buy new copies to cheat again.

Don't care if it is unfair, don't cheat. It should be against the law under the cyber bullying act, this is the age of the internet, most of us consider the internet part of our lifestyle.

maybe not cyber bullying, but i could get behind this kind of punishment for the future hackers.

[Rika-chan]

magilla posted:

blizzard permanently bans WoW accounts with hundreds and hundreds of hours invested permanently at the slightest semblance of cheating. i would think it harsher to lose such an account. even with a couple hundred dollars invested in steam.

you also stated that it would be a legality issue; so change the user agreement. case & point.

people crave identity. many will suffer this hit in an attempt to use their own accounts, and the burners will pass. but this would teach a younger and less careful generation more about how awful the act of hacking is.

Edited:



that is because of punkbuster's recent weaknesses, not because people exploited banners and ads. their reputation is also not driven beneath the dirt. don't misrepresent my argument.

My steam account is worth over 4k USD and I can say I would rather be banned from WoW

[TexRob]

Soupstorm posted:

A person is only going to cheat a second time if they think it's worth the consequences. To some people, $15 every week or two is worth destroying everyone else with hacks in CSGO. To others, it's not. Sometimes it takes actually experiencing the consequence, rather than just seeing the threat of it, to change behaviour. Some cheaters never cheat again, some thieves only steal once, some killers really do reform. It's not fair to exclude an entire group based on the activity of some, no matter the ratio of good to bad.

VAC bans for rust are taking upwards of months to never. I have people who I check their profiles from January, who still have not been banned. There is so little risk, it's no wonder so many cheat. I think the cheat people will also buy you a new game if you get banned, right?