one key example for me is: in the App replacement for TTY, i was ripping my hair out while internally phrasing „wtf do u fucking want ?”.
- it's simply possible that u both speak a common language, that is different from my language (eg.: for me, „app” means application (or utility) (eg., Firefox (a web browser), Kaspersky (an anti-malware tool)), TTY means a terminal (or TremFusion's „Tremulous-TTY” client); when Tremulous is started from a terminal, the terminal end presents the in-game console, and allows inputting commands, which is already an application; do u speak this English ?).
- it's possible that u just don't communicate with MaeJong on topics that expose the differing levels of understanding. for casual topic related to life (ololololo;>), a relatively vague understanding (eg., there was a physical fight at the bar, it's irrelevant who the initiator was) for u may feel sufficient, but for topics like feature requests (especially for the potential implementer), it's simply not permissible.
yes, definitely. which means what ? here r some increasing levels of thinking on this:
- level 1: what ? title says it all: it's a general topic.
- level 2: WRONG (in response to „level 1”). there is context (that only hardcore forum followers may spot). basically, „map remakes” actually refers to a few maps presented in the last few months on this forum.
- level 3: WRONG (in response to „level 2”). there is context, but it's actually the following: the old thread(s) got derailed,1 turned into flame wars,2 ppl started flagging,3 or alike, and admins asked to cease and desist such.4 so the desire is to continue in a permissible way: to start a clean conversation, explicitly sending away any past intentions. so it's a general topic after all.
1 2 3 4 deja vu
u've missed the point. the question is not about what „remake” means in English, but about, of the infinite set of possible meanings, which exact one is used here.
sometimes, a bold statement is met with a bold reply. eg.: „Tremulous is all about flooding the game software market with crap.” — „WRONG”. an explanation won't be provided if such would require extreme effort for which i can't be assed. eg.: „infidels go to hell” — „WRONG”. a baseless statement is called WRONG on the grounds of fallacious reasoning. i may also surround such replies with trollage. however, none of such has happened up to this point. the said „WRONG” was just about adding depth to the explanations given just before the said „WRONG”.
more precisely, i generally see both important.
proper placement of quotation marks, use of quotation marks for text structuring, European-style quotes, no sentence-initial capitals, space before exclamation and question marks, z-ization5, immediately-recognizable and unambiguous abbreviations of frequent words; also, the unconditional full capitalization of „WRONG”, „PROBLEM”, etc.. oh, the horrors !
5 SOMG = the British version of ZOMG
- „All remakes are good.”
ok, so this appears to start out like a scale-based rating poll, so other choices would be along the lines of „most r good, others r bad”, „half r good, half r bad”, etc..
- „Pretty remakes are always better regardless of gameplay.”
wtf ? that's an independent statement asking for a weighing of the importance of visual elegance and the importance of gameplay (fairness, variety, etc.?). a debate on this is worth a full poll on its own.
- „Good gameplay regardless of the graphics.”
tasty potatoes regardless of the plate.
as the thread is titled „What are your thoughts about map remakes?”, perhaps „in recent map remakes, good gameplay is achieved at the cost of graphics.” is meant.
however, based on the analysis of the following, probably „Good gameplay is top priority to achieve, regardless of the graphics.” is meant.
- „Both graphics and gameplay are very important.”
- „Fuck all remakes.”
This has a flavor of being the opposite of the 1st option, but with some details: remakes can „go fuck themselves” even if each is a good map on its own, because having slight variations of maps creates confusion and association mistakes.
no, because that would neglect the reasons why they would think that the poll does make sense. explanations should be provided, and this is exactly what has been initiated here.
first thing is to understand what MaeJong wants. also, CBA.
bold statement is met with a bold reply.