Forums → Forum Games → Vote to Kick | Voting & Discussion

So is everything compared to something else. It always gets worse. So you being able to do that doesn't prove much besides, this is yet another subjective thing For me it's boring, for you it's ok, that's all there is to it

Why? You don't like it?

No really, it's not a good username

Fixation would mean I want everything to be epic. Instead, I only pointed out that your username doesn't have that quality. Kind of a straw man but that's ok

So you should feel the same about SirLegendary, or UnleashedUponMankind (three uppercase letters ), to name just two. Names that you consider epic.

Υes I consider them epic, at least more epic than yours does not mean they are not complicated to write when I want to @ summon one of them.

Which means that your whole point is that you think my name is bad, not that it objectively is. You failed to make it clear form the beginning that this is about your opinion, when you accused my username of being bad.

How good or bad a username is, is obviously (one could say, by definition) subjective. I thought it was fairly obvious I was talking about my opinion, hence why I did not bother clarifying. Even when I replied to your question with this:

No really, it's not a good username

If you feel I should have clarified, then maybe. Apologies. I thought you would realize

It's not really a straw man, as my name not being epic was one of the criteria you mentioned to argue that my name was bad. If you weren't -maybe not fixated but biased towards epicness- you wouldn't consider this as a really valid reason.

Yes because being epic is for me a quality of a good username. That part is true. That still does not constitute a fixation though. In the post you are referring I mostly mentioned the lack of qualities in my opinion a username should have. That lack is mostly what makes it a bad username for me. Am I biased towards epicness (which apparently is not recognized as a real word by the spellcheck of this chat, despite being in the urban dictionary and the wiktionary) when it comes to usernames? maybe. I definitely consider it one of the qualities a good username should have. Does that constitute a fixation? definitely not. I fail to see how you even came to that conclusion

@doombreed <- If you get this notification, then that means your argument about bothersome uppercase when tagging has just been destroyed

Normally, I would get it, but for some reason, AG notifications have been acting up with me. Maybe it will come in a few minutes. But the problem in the complexity of your username is not just the uppercase letters, it's also how it goes... ha - hi - ha. Tried to type it with my normal typing speed, ended up typing haiah...

Eh. I guess it's just me being used to it ^^

Anyway, as SirLegendary would say, 'It has been 7 days'. It was fun arguing with you, I hope I didn't give you the impression of taking this too personally Soooooo...

@SirLegendary
Voting to kick: shafaet
Reason: I still don't know what his username means, even though I tagged him and Chryos when I asked. He said at the beginning of this round that he'd try to stay as active as he can and be ready to argue, yet here we are again...

I hope I didn't give you the impression of taking this too personally Soooooo...

Nope no worries. It was fun, even though I lost at most arguments xD Looking forward for it again.

@SirLegendary
Voting to kick: shafaet
Reason: because he is the least active player (which I would justify but: ) and if we don't vote, we all risk being randomly kicked.

@SirLegendary

Voting to kick: shafet
Reason: I'm surprised he wasn't kicked earlier. He is rather semi-active and I think it's best to kick him out.

Announcement

It has been 7 days.

Eliminated: @shafaet

The spread sheet is in the OP.

Let the next round begin!

Signed Up:

1. @/Loop_Stratos
2. @Doombreed
3. @/MattEmAngel
4. @HahiHa
5. @Chryosten
6. @/armorplayergc
7. @/akshobhya
8. @/red303
9. @/shafaet
10. @/BalkanRenegades

Right, so here we are then...us three, one could say the big three, the three power players, whatever.

Didn't think I would last that long honestly

Wow, we already wasted 5 days. Some semi-final this is

So, em, @Doombreed and @Chryos ... I make the assertion that vehicle traffic should be completely transferred underground. Do you agree/disagree?

Wow, we already wasted 5 days. Some semi-final this is

Well, I didn't want to be the one to start talking first for yet another round I suspect you guys are on the verge of voting me off for being too talkative due to a lack of other more logical reasons xD And besides, I was the one to post last, I would have to double post in order to start a discussion

I make the assertion that vehicle traffic should be completely transferred underground. Do you agree/disagree?

To be honest, I haven't put any thought into that matter, serious or otherwise. It looks to me there are some advantages and drawbacks on both options. On the one hand, moving traffic underground means a cleaner overground city, safe pedestrians, less pollution and it would also just look more plain beautiful I think. On the other, traffic congestion underground is only more dangerous. And with the entirety of it transferred underground, pollution in those 'tunnels' would reach critical mass. Even vents have to move the poisonous fumes somewhere, they can't make it disappear. And that's not considering cases of claustrophobia/earthquakes/any sort of emergency.

I suppose I will need a detailed plan for that before I make up my mind

Well, I didn't want to be the one to start talking first for yet another round I suspect you guys are on the verge of voting me off for being too talkative due to a lack of other more logical reasons xD And besides, I was the one to post last, I would have to double post in order to start a discussion

On the other, traffic congestion underground is only more dangerous.

And that's not considering cases of claustrophobia/earthquakes/any sort of emergency.

Why would that be?

Unless you can add an easily accessible but not easily abused system of evacuating people to the overground smoothly, efficiently and swiftly (which means pretty much a door that leads to the overground almost every 10 meters ), then any emergency means problems for the people below. I imagine this like a massive subway project, but the access points need to be everywhere (remember, aside from the emergencies, one also needs access to the spot where one parks his/her vehicle ) All in all, such a project would need tons of planning and a massive amount of funds spent on its execution. Is it better? potentially. If it's done right (which means spending everything on planning it correctly. In accounting for everything, public transportation, parking spots, large streets and avenues, multiple access points and the rest of the 2 million things I haven't considered. I would be in favor of something like that if it was so efficiently planned and executed, sure

Those are already issues taken into consideration in regular tunnels, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel, we already have all we need Except claustrophobia; I didn't think of that as an issue, as long as tunnels are large enough. Claustrophobic people already have to cope with tunnels and underground parking garages and the like, and so far my impression was that there wasn't a big issue; maybe I just haven't heard about it.

Parking garages are rare here actually Everyone parks wherever they can xD And there is almost no free parking spot in the country that's not always 100% full, even the open-air parking places

It would definitely require a ton of planning. Emergency exits are already a thing in regular tunnels, at least here, but the various additional accesses needed would be a real challenge...

In my opinion, the biggest danger would be a sort of 'highway hypnosis' for tunnels; with surroundings that never change much, and possibly long distances of straight underground roads, accidents are bound to happen. This drawback to the idea of underground traffic could be resolved by fully automated traffic. However, this would mean that such a project could not be realized without self-driving cars, trucks and buses for everyone.

Anyway, this isn't turning out exactly how I'd hoped... not enough conflict XD It is an interesting topic that could be discussed much further, but the end of the round is getting close, so I'll stop here.

@SirLegendary
Voting to kick: Chryosten
Reasons: First, he hasn't shared his thoughts on my assertion so far; and last but not least, Doombreed has been more willing to debate topics and would make a more interesting opponent for the final round if I should make it through this round.

Sorry about not coming to visit this thread. I've been kinda busy that I couldn't find the time to debate.

To be honest, as interesting as the idea is, the cost is going to be pretty high. I mean, not only do you have to dig underground just to build massive tunnels which goes underneath every single road in the world, but you're going to have to filter out all the carbon monoxide from all the cars and buses. The only way I can sidestep the air filtering is for the vehicles to become fully electric, but that'll ruin the point of the underground tunnels for the roads.

Anyway, even if you do build the road tunnel, it'll be only useful in the urban areas. I don't see it being that useful in the rural areas and so they'll probably save costs by not bothering to build there. You know farmers also use vehicles to maintain their crops. Unless of course, you move that underground too.

Overall, it's a pretty bad idea as not only will it consume a whole lot of resources just to build underground garages underneath every single house/unit but is it really worth it in the long run? You also have to consider how emergency services are going to respond in the events of an accident and you also need to think of the maintenance costs just to make sure the tunnels don't collapse. So yes, whilst it's a good idea, it's not really worth ripping up the entire underground just to build a whole lot of tunnels.