ForumsNews and Feedback[Official] Armor Games Studios Discord Chat for Gamers

49 2169
MrDayCee
offline
MrDayCee
14,460 posts
King

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4486/23788617398_7feb7367e6_c_d.jpg

Heyo all you fine gaming denizens of Armoria!

Some of you may have already heard about this new 'thing' going around in gaming land for some time, but for those that hear (read) about it for the first time, let's get you up to speed real quick!

The Discord Chat application is a free medium for gamers around the world to connect and discuss games. With the ever-growing gaming community world-wide, there now is a simple voice and text chat system that lets you communicate with other people while playing your favorite games.

As Armor Games is continuously expanding in the world of gaming, we feel that the need for a Discord Chat Server specifically for our respected Armor Games users may be now more than ever. That is why we decided to launch one of our own and we would like you all to join and try out this new way of connecting with other Armor Games users.

That is why we have an invite link for you to join up and create a free AGS Discord account!
CLICK ME TO JOIN!

Just to make sure, all our Armor Games' Rules and Guidelines for Comment, Chat and Forums apply on this AGS Discord Chat.

And if you have any questions, let me know and I'll be sure to answer them to the best of my knowledge. See you all on AGS Discord!

  • 49 Replies
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

@Freakenstein

Don't worry. ArmorGames is listening to every community's suggestion with utmost discretion! While you're waiting for a response, why don't you go on and play a few flash games lol xD

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

[...] ya feel ya feel.
I do not.

Staff finds out. Staff says "no no, it's unofficial, we need you here to keep an eye on y'all!." where's the T&C on that rule, Mister?
That would be one or more integral parts of US corporate law, if I'm not mistaken. No one outside the company's staff has authority to dictate what is official to or endorsed by that company.

But now, oh man this is brilliant. Now, when a user suggested an idea that resonated well, the staff would just plain blow them off. [...]
Then while mulling over what to do about the rascals on this new feature, someone in the staff says "wait, hold up, this is actually a good idea!" So they use it, feature it on the community, and censor further links to the proto-feature because it wasn't their idea and it's not on their leash.
Appealing to spite, are we?
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

I do not.

Yeah. online communities should be beholden to their sources! We need an authority figure to dictate whether people can interact and grow in relationships with eachother, right?! /s

That would be one or more integral parts of US corporate law, if I'm not mistaken. No one outside the company's staff has authority to dictate what is official to or endorsed by that company.

Seems to me like you're dodging the point. Let me reiterate for you in an analogy:

I find an apple tree on a land unowned by people.
I tell the leaders of my town, "Hey, there's an apple tree here!"
The leaders of my town reply "Apple trees do not matter to us."
So, I tell my friends, "Hey, there's an apple tree here!"
And they come.
The leaders of my town begin to feel they are having people drawn away from their community.
So the leaders of the town plant an apple tree.
They declare "This is the official apple tree of this community."
People at the original apple tree are curious, and come over to see what it's like
They discuss amongst themselves about what is going on with the other apple tree.
And it turns out the new apple tree is a seed in a pile of dirt with no apples.
So they return to their apple tree.
And the new apple tree remains uncultivated. The leaders did not want apples to grow, they wanted the people who come to apples.

Appealing to spite, are we?

I agree that talking about censorship is appealing to spite (aka annoying) the censor-ers. That doesn't make it irrelevant.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,748 posts
Grand Duke

I find it a tad hypocritical to speak of censorship when the user thread in which the unofficial chat was announced has, as far as I know, never been shut down and the invite link in the OP is still intact. And I have yet to see a staff member go to the user thread to promote the official chat there.

I also still don't see how it would impact activity negatively if many, if not most, people from the unofficial chat are only active there to begin with. I am genuinely asking myself that question, in case anyone would agree to explain this to me.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

Yeah. online communities should be beholden to their sources! We need an authority figure to dictate whether people can interact and grow in relationships with eachother, right?! /s
Impressive. I would not have thought it possible to build straw men from a purely imaginary context. How exactly did you extrapolate "We need an authority figure to dictate [things]" from what amounts to "I do not feel [feeling] about [subject]"?

I find an apple tree on a land unowned by people.
I tell the leaders of my town, "Hey, there's an apple tree here!"
The leaders of my town reply "Apple trees do not matter to us."
So, I tell my friends, "Hey, there's an apple tree here!"
And they come.
The leaders of my town begin to feel they are having people drawn away from their community.
So the leaders of the town plant an apple tree.
They declare "This is the official apple tree of this community."
People at the original apple tree are curious, and come over to see what it's like
They discuss amongst themselves about what is going on with the other apple tree.
And it turns out the new apple tree is a seed in a pile of dirt with no apples.
So they return to their apple tree.
And the new apple tree remains uncultivated. The leaders did not want apples to grow, they wanted the people who come to apples.
And amidst the confusion, marsians came and stole the Space Needle because, really, at this point you're just telling a parable with no basis in reality.

Let's see exactly where your 'analogy' broke down:
"I find an apple tree on a land unowned by people."
Well, third-party sites aren't exactly no-mans-land, but sure, whatever.
"And it turns out the new apple tree is a seed in a pile of dirt with no apples."
For this to be an analogy, the official version would need to be incapable of producing anything of value for a considerable time, while the unofficial version was producing from the start. Abandoned chat servers aren't likely to be found with fully active communities waiting to join yours, so what are you trying to say here? Did you hijack the server from an existing community and throw them out?
"And the new apple tree remains uncultivated. The leaders did not want apples to grow, they wanted the people who come to apples."
This doesn't work either. What "apples" does a chat system provide without people? It looks like you're trying to make a false dichotomy by pretending that 'people' and 'community' are mutually exclusive things.

I agree that talking about censorship is appealing to spite (aka annoying) the censor-ers. That doesn't make it irrelevant.
Nice false attribution. Unfortunately, you should not be agreeing with that fictional statement, because it's complete nonsense. Appealing to the spite of your opponent toward your opponent's position almost never works. Also, it's still a fallacy of relevance, and that does, in fact, make it irrelevant.

I also still don't see how it would impact activity negatively if many, if not most, people from the unofficial chat are only active there to begin with.
More negatively than starting the unofficial chat did? Probably not at all, but each new discord server for AG users has the potential to divert some user activity from this site.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

Impressive. I would not have thought it possible to build straw men from a purely imaginary context. How exactly did you extrapolate "We need an authority figure to dictate [things]" from what amounts to "I do not feel [feeling] about [subject]"?

It appears you have some trouble with reading comprehension. By saying 'ya feel ya feel' pangtongshu was asking if you agreed with his premise, which you stated you do not.

Let me elaborate on my analogy by changing a few things per your request.

I find an apple tree on a land unowned by people.

I plant an apple tree with permission on someone else's land and it grows into an apple tree through my contributions.

Consider apples to be analogous to relationships.

The rest stays the same, and it doesn't change the meaning at all. I recommend looking up how analogies work.

Unfortunately, you should not be agreeing with that fictional statement, because it's complete nonsense.

I agree with this as well. My previous err was agreeing with you, and as per your new claim: agreement with you is complete nonsense.

inb4 it's a fallacy of X

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

It appears you have some trouble with reading comprehension. By saying 'ya feel ya feel' pangtongshu was asking if you agreed with his premise, which you stated you do not.
His premise was that it was "more for the community itself, rather than the location", so no, it still isn't related to needing an authority figure to dictate things. Nice try, though.

I plant an apple tree with permission on someone else's land and it grows into an apple tree through my contributions.
You plant a tree that grows into a tree? That's a far cry from "a seed in a pile of dirt with no apples", so my point stands.

Consider apples to be analogous to relationships.
Relationships require participants; in this case, people. Therefore, a chat system cannot provide relationships if it doesn't have people using it. Therefore, my other point also stands: You are pretending that AG's goals are unrelated to yours in this matter, when they are in fact the same.

I agree with this as well. My previous err was agreeing with you, and as per your new claim: agreement with you is complete nonsense.
Good job hilariously misrepresenting both of us again. You cannot agree with what is beyond your comprehension. Therefore, you do not agree with me.

Armor Games does not own Discord. They did not help create Discord and they do not own stock in Discord. They are in no way entitled to one that is any more legitimate than the existing one, even if theirs will be more closely guarded and offer golden apples.
Did they ever suggest otherwise?
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

His premise was that it was "more for the community itself, rather than the location", so no, it still isn't related to needing an authority figure to dictate things. Nice try, though

I was suggesting your position as it was in opposition towards pangs premise. Please elaborate what your position is relating to the premise that you disagree with.

You plant a tree that grows into a tree? That's a far cry from "a seed in a pile of dirt with no apples", so my point stands.

If you don't understand how farming works I cannot aid you.

Relationships require participants; in this case, people. Therefore, a chat system cannot provide relationships if it doesn't have people using it. Therefore, my other point also stands: You are pretending that AG's goals are unrelated to yours in this matter, when they are in fact the same.

Nice strawman. I never said AG's goals were unrelated to mine in this matter. It is a conflict of authority towards the same goal (building sustainable relationships).

Good job hilariously misrepresenting both of us again. You cannot agree with what is beyond your comprehension. Therefore, you do not agree with me.

aka 'haha im too smart for you'. Try actually arguing. Building your own credibility and destroying mine serves nothing in this context. You're merely trying (P.S. not looking too good) to boost your own ego.

Did they ever suggest otherwise?

They censor links to the unofficial discord (aka de-legitimizing it).
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

I was suggesting your position as it was in opposition towards pangs premise.
No. You were suggesting something you could easily attack, regardless of the premise.

Please elaborate what your position is relating to the premise that you disagree with.
Which premise? The one previously under discussion is not one I disagreed with, so I'm not sure what you mean.

If you don't understand how farming works I cannot aid you.
Good to know. I'll be sure to never cite you as an expert on the subject. Now, if you wouldn't mind returning to the point, the distinction your analogy makes between the quality and useability of your chat server and theirs is entirely false.

I never said AG's goals were unrelated to mine in this matter. It is a conflict of authority towards the same goal (building sustainable relationships).
Then, if we are to follow your analogy, you also "did not want [relationships] to grow". Rather, you "wanted the people who come to [relationships]". It seems odd that you would omit such a detail from your totally fitting and obviously unbiased analogy.

aka 'haha im too smart for you'. Try actually arguing.
Arguing what? All you've added to this part of the discussion is a chain of blatant misattribution.

They censor links to the unofficial discord (aka de-legitimizing it).
1 Nice equivocation. If Matt were referring to legitimation by AG, we would have to conclude that the site is fully entitled to legitimate as many servers as they like.
2 To be delegitimized, it would first have to be legitimized. Therefore, unless you have reason to believe that AG had at one point officially endorsed the unofficial chat, no act of censoring can be at fault for the current lack of legitimacy.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

No. You were suggesting something you could easily attack, regardless of the premise.

In honesty, I was strawmanning you in jest because I believe opposition to pang's premise is absurd.

Which premise? The one previously under discussion is not one I disagreed with, so I'm not sure what you mean.

I will give you the full context so you can adequately reply.

And it has several dozen active, long-term members of the community who give a darn about the site.
So, apparently, did the FGA at one time or another.
Still do, actually. More for the community itself, rather than the location at this point ya feel ya feel.
I do not.

Please elaborate what you disagree with.

Good to know. I'll be sure to never cite you as an expert on the subject. Now, if you wouldn't mind returning to the point, the distinction your analogy makes between the quality and useability of your chat server and theirs is entirely false.

Then, if we are to follow your analogy, you also "did not want [relationships] to grow". Rather, you "wanted the people who come to [relationships]". It seems odd that you would omit such a detail from your totally fitting and obviously unbiased analogy.

Analogies are not what is happening. They attribute qualities to the event so that you may have a clearer understanding of the happening. Finding semantic flaws in analogies is as pointless. You're focusing on the words of an imperfect language we call English.

The quality and usability of the Unofficial AG chatroom is undisputably higher than AGS (as of this moment). AGS has poorer organization and less activity.

Arguing what? All you've added to this part of the discussion is a chain of blatant misattribution.

I'll allow you the favor of the full context again.

But now, oh man this is brilliant. Now, when a user suggested an idea that resonated well, the staff would just plain blow them off. [...]
Then while mulling over what to do about the rascals on this new feature, someone in the staff says "wait, hold up, this is actually a good idea!" So they use it, feature it on the community, and censor further links to the proto-feature because it wasn't their idea and it's not on their leash.

Appealing to spite, are we?
I agree that talking about censorship is appealing to spite (aka annoying) the censor-ers. That doesn't make it irrelevant.
Nice false attribution. Unfortunately, you should not be agreeing with that fictional statement, because it's complete nonsense. Appealing to the spite of your opponent toward your opponent's position almost never works. Also, it's still a fallacy of relevance, and that does, in fact, make it irrelevant.
I agree with this as well. My previous err was agreeing with you, and as per your new claim: agreement with you is complete nonsense.
Good job hilariously misrepresenting both of us again. You cannot agree with what is beyond your comprehension. Therefore, you do not agree with me.
aka 'haha im too smart for you'. Try actually arguing. Building your own credibility and destroying mine serves nothing in this context. You're merely trying (P.S. not looking too good) to boost your own ego.
Arguing what? All you've added to this part of the discussion is a chain of blatant misattribution.

I would like to see your argument for censorship.

1 Nice equivocation. If Matt were referring to legitimation by AG, we would have to conclude that the site is fully entitled to legitimate as many servers as they like.
2 To be delegitimized, it would first have to be legitimized. Therefore, unless you have reason to believe that AG had at one point officially endorsed the unofficial chat, no act of censoring can be at fault for the current lack of legitimacy.

Don't make the logical fallacy of affirming the antecedent now. You know better.
a->b
~a
therefore b

Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

Then, if we are to follow your analogy, you also "did not want [relationships] to grow". Rather, you "wanted the people who come to [relationships]". It seems odd that you would omit such a detail from your totally fitting and obviously unbiased analogy.

I would like to also point out that goals can have different methods of attainment The focus on an unofficial chatroom is to build relationships with eachother. It appears to me the focus of AGS is to get people in there.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

And it has several dozen active, long-term members of the community who give a darn about the site.
So, apparently, did the FGA at one time or another.
Still do, actually. More for the community itself, rather than the location at this point ya feel ya feel.
I do not.

Please elaborate what you disagree with.

None of the aforementioned. You've just inserted superfluous content from pang's statement to make it appear like a disagreement.

Finding semantic flaws in analogies is as pointless. You're focusing on the words of an imperfect language we call English.
Actually, I'm focussing on the necessary consequences of what you described through the use of your 'analogy'. You know, like that whole entire reason for making an analogy in the first place? That.

AGS has poorer organization and less activity.
Which could not have also been said of the unofficial server immediately after its own conception?

I would like to see your argument for censorship.
What argument? You mean this first bit here? Otherwise, I didn't bring up censorship. In fact, that is a point of so minor significance to my response to Freakenstein that its only reason for inclusion in quote was its placement between two relevant points.

Don't make the logical fallacy of affirming the antecedent now. You know better.
I do indeed know better, but evidently, you don't. Affirming the antecedent is never a logical fallacy.

I would like to also point out that goals can have different methods of attainment The focus on an unofficial chatroom is to build relationships with eachother. It appears to me the focus of AGS is to get people in there.
So?
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

None of the aforementioned. You've just inserted superfluous content from pang's statement to make it appear like a disagreement.

It's kind of hard to accuse me of manipulating the context when I give you the full context.

What argument? You mean this first bit here? Otherwise, I didn't bring up censorship. In fact, that is a point of so minor significance to my response to Freakenstein that its only reason for inclusion in quote was its placement between two relevant points.

What was the point of your statement "appealing to spite, are we?" I obviously do not understand.
As far as I can tell, you are stating: "you sound annoying".

Actually, I'm focussing on the necessary consequences of what you described through the use of your 'analogy'. You know, like that whole entire reason for making an analogy in the first place? That.

Okay. I will give you it. People interacting are required to have relationships grow. As of now, an unofficial system exists for them to do so. Creating an official system disregarding and censoring the unofficial system is damaging to existing relationships. That is my argument.

I do indeed know better, but evidently, you don't. Affirming the antecedent is never a logical fallacy.

Yeah, I meant denying the antecedent. It seems like you're still more focused on words than points.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

What was the point of your statement "appealing to spite, are we?" I obviously do not understand.
An appeal to spite is an attempt to sway people toward a position by exploiting discontent they have for something else. In this case, I was stating my suspicion that Freakenstein was using the negative feelings of people whose ideas were rejected and/or who dislike others having authoritative control over content to make his statement seem more valid than it is.

Creating an official system disregarding and censoring the unofficial system is damaging to existing relationships. That is my argument.
Okay. I don't really see why this would be damaging any relationships, though, unless you mean staff-user relationships, but those would be due to contention over the new server, rather than the server itself.

Yeah, I meant denying the antecedent. It seems like you're still more focused on words than points.
So you would like to remind me not to start denying the antecedent? Okay, thanks.

Certainly not! The server had nearly ten people within a week of it starting and most of the channels it currently has. Since then it has had dips in activity but that is over a period of 8 months. It was tremendously popular on startup.
Then I fail to see why it's an issue, as anything that simple can as quickly and easily be done for AGS. The only hindrance appears to be this peculiar antagonism toward the idea of an official chat server.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

An appeal to spite is an attempt to sway people toward a position by exploiting discontent they have for something else. In this case, I was stating my suspicion that Freakenstein was using the negative feelings of people whose ideas were rejected and/or who dislike others having authoritative control over content to make his statement seem more valid than it is.

What is evidence if not anecdotes of past experiences? If you're saying his argument is invalid because it makes people feel bad, that's a pretty crappy invalidation.

Okay. I don't really see why this would be damaging any relationships, though, unless you mean staff-user relationships, but those would be due to contention over the new server, rather than the server itself.

This is a thread where we are talking about the new server. I may not fully understand your point. Let's assume disregarding = disrespecting. Disrespecting users does not cultivate relationships, cultivating relationships appears to be the goal of this server.

hen I fail to see why it's an issue, as anything that simple can as quickly and easily be done for AGS. The only hindrance appears to be this peculiar antagonism toward the idea of an official chat server.

It's already been up a week and it still has poor organization and the only people discussing topics are popping in from the unofficial server. If we are taking it as a week-by-week basis, AGS has failed in comparison.

Showing 16-30 of 49