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

49 2156
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
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

What is evidence if not anecdotes of past experiences?
Generally more sound, at least on average.

If you're saying his argument is invalid because it makes people feel bad, that's a pretty crappy invalidation.
Indeed it would be, but that isn't at all what I said, is it?

Let's assume disregarding = disrespecting.
Why would we assume that, exactly?

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.
And why has no one given it the same attention that was given the unofficial server?
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

Generally more sound, at least on average.

It's funny you're referring to the statistic of soundness inductively to discredit inductive arguments.

Indeed it would be, but that isn't at all what I said, is it?

Okay, you stated that you suspect 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.

Am I correct in paraphrasing this as: "Frank deliberately played up negative emotions for validity and this calls into question his validity"?

Why would we assume that, exactly?

The argument I'm trying to communicate is that: by the administrators disrespecting users (disregarding, censoring the unofficial chat), it has called into question the credibility of their goal of wanting to have sustained relationships with their users.

And why has no one given it the same attention that was given the unofficial server?

I would make a guess that they haven't put substantial effort towards promoting or organizing their server due to their credibility.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

It's funny you're referring to the statistic of soundness inductively to discredit inductive arguments.
Not particularly, what with anecdotal evidence being the weakest form of inductive support in existence.

Am I correct in paraphrasing this as: "Frank deliberately played up negative emotions for validity and this calls into question his validity"?
Not quite. I phrased it as a question specifically because I'm not privy to his ultimate intentions, so I wouldn't be asserting that it was deliberate unless he clearly indicated so. Also, the claim's validity is in question regardless.

The argument I'm trying to communicate is that: by the administrators disrespecting users (disregarding, censoring the unofficial chat), it has called into question the credibility of their goal of wanting to have sustained relationships with their users.
Hm. Alright, but disregarding and censoring isn't exactly what they did there. They declined to participate in and discouraged users from promoting AGU (it being a server AG has no authority in, on a third-party site that AG had no involvement with, it stands to reason that they would do this).

I would make a guess that they haven't put substantial effort towards promoting or organizing their server due to their credibility.
I'm not sure how credibility factors into this, but all of that that seems like a minor and quite temporary difficulty.

Um, no. The main hindrance is, like Graham just said, poor organization and attendance.
Perhaps, rather than continually making an issue out of it, we could do something productive and change that?
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

Not particularly, what with anecdotal evidence being the weakest form of inductive support in existence.

Provide me evidence irrespective of experience please.

Also, the claim's validity is in question regardless.

Please expand upon this. I hope you know my point was to get to why you are questioning his validity.

They declined to participate in and discouraged users from promoting AGU (it being a server AG has no authority in, on a third-party site that AG had no involvement with, it stands to reason that they would do this).

I equate declining to participate with a subsect their userbase as a deliberate choice to to remain unaffiliated with them. They discouraged users from promoting AGU due to it taking away site traffic, and then promote their own AGS 8 months later (which will still take away site traffic). I'm having difficulty coming up with a reason for their reversal: it suddenly being okay to redirect site traffic. Could you aid me?

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

Provide me evidence irrespective of experience please.
Answered on profile due to irrelevance.

Please expand upon this. I hope you know my point was to get to why you are questioning his validity.
Paragraph 1 is overly generalized and apparently baseless. Paragraph 2 erroneously implies that AG is exceeding its authority and that its business decisions are haphazard and premature.

I'm having difficulty coming up with a reason for their reversal: it suddenly being okay to redirect site traffic. Could you aid me?
Nope. I don't understand it either, nor would I have advocated it.

Can you offer a reason why the admins has allowed this discussion/argument (which is very much about them and their ability to do their jobs) to go for an entire week without, you know, responding? Offering to make a change? Acknowledging the concerns of users? Telling us that they have things under control and to not fret about it?
They might be trying to work out a solution before they risk causing more opposition. Maybe they just haven't anything pertinent to add at this time. Otherwise, no idea.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

Paragraph 1 is overly generalized and apparently baseless. Paragraph 2 erroneously implies that AG is exceeding its authority and that its business decisions are haphazard and premature.

I'm gonna need a few objective standards from you.
a) What is the criterion for something being overly generalized
b) what is the criterion for an argument having a base
c) how would you determine whether a third party's business decisions are haphazard and premature

Nope. I don't understand it either, nor would I have advocated it.

So we agree on not understanding the decision and not advocating it. Would it be too liberal of me to call it a double standard? (e.g. do as I say, not as I do)

If we accept it as a double standard, we agree that administrators are allowed certain freedoms users are not. They are allowed to break their standards of rules.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

a) What is the criterion for something being overly generalized
Equating all instances of something to a specific set of examples which are not demonstrated to be representative of the norm.

b) what is the criterion for an argument having a base
Having evidential support.

c) how would you determine whether a third party's business decisions are haphazard and premature
I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be one to assume knowledge of decision making processes that I am not entirely privy to.

So we agree on not understanding the decision and not advocating it. Would it be too liberal of me to call it a double standard? (e.g. do as I say, not as I do)
If we accept it as a double standard, we agree that administrators are allowed certain freedoms users are not. They are allowed to break their standards of rules.
1 It is not a double standard, nor does it break any rules. AGS is not a server that AG has no authority in on a third-party site that AG has no involvement with.
2 We should still agree that administrators (specifically, those with executive roles) are allowed certain freedoms users are not. That should be true of any privately owned organization.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

Equating all instances of something to a specific set of examples which are not demonstrated to be representative of the norm.

Alrighty. What is the norm, (you could give me a rough estimate), of how suggestions are received and implemented at AG?

Having evidential support.

I'm not one to discount personal experience as evidential support, nor the amount of suggestion threads unimplemented. I have issues with a 'base' being synonymous with 'evidence' because we need to establish criteria for acceptable evidence. Do you have any suggestions?

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be one to assume knowledge of decision making processes that I am not entirely privy to.

At what level of asynchronous information would you consider observers of a phenomenon 'not having all the information' in a decision?

1 It is not a double standard, nor does it break any rules. AGS is not a server that AG has no authority in on a third-party site that AG has no involvement with.

Walk me through this: Are any of these premises wrong?
Administrators do not allow users to link to sites that redirect traffic away from AG.
Administrators can post links to sites that redirect traffic away from AG

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

What is the norm, (you could give me a rough estimate), of how suggestions are received and implemented at AG?
Only if managable with current resources and recognizeably beneficial, and/or in high demand.

Do you have any suggestions?
About what?

At what level of asynchronous information would you consider observers of a phenomenon 'not having all the information' in a decision?
... What? Not having all the information is not having all the information.

Administrators do not allow users to link to sites that redirect traffic away from AG.
Not necessarily. They aren't likely to object against linking to disqus, Steam, this Discord server, or facebook, for example.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

Only if managable with current resources and recognizeably beneficial, and/or in high demand.

Allow me to point you to the unaddressed issues of favoritism concerning knighthood, the implementation of a complete design overhaul for AG3.0 (that never happened), and the disapproval of the new forum design.
Please explain how these are recognizably beneficial and/or in high demand.

I would like examples supporting your case too, mister.

About what?

When does a piece of evidence become credible?

... What? Not having all the information is not having all the information.

Give me a % estimate. I'm trying to gauge how much information you think a former mod was privy to.

Not necessarily. They aren't likely to object against linking to disqus, Steam, this Discord server, or facebook, for example.

Alright. Please explain why AGU links are not allowed.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

Allow me to point you to the unaddressed issues of favoritism concerning knighthood, the implementation of a complete design overhaul for AG3.0 (that never happened), and the disapproval of the new forum design.
Please explain how these are recognizably beneficial and/or in high demand.
1 The issues of favoritism were never concrete, and the subject was addressed ad nauseam.
2 The overhaul you refer to does not appear to be a point of contention. The link, as near as I can tell, demonstrates nothing.
3 The forum design disapproval consisted almost entirely of Matt disapproving of the decision to remove the Newcomers Forum despite his insistence that it was a bad idea.
4 As I stated in the forum design thread, the point of requesting feedback is to give the admin an idea of how the community will respond to a proposed change, if implemented, and to address any severe debilitating flaws that might have initially been overlooked. It is not to give final veto to whoever bothers to respond.

When does a piece of evidence become credible?
You want me to suggest ... criteria ... for when some unspecified evidence becomes credible evidence of something? Why? How does that relate to what we were discussing?

Give me a % estimate. I'm trying to gauge how much information you think a former mod was privy to.
... See, you're asking for a statistic that has no bearing on the subject. I'm not interested in discussing what he may or may not be aware of, nor is that pertinent to my suspicion that he was appealing to spite.

Alright. Please explain why AGU links are not allowed.
If I'm not mistaken, it's because AGU is something unaffiliated with AG on an external site and is considered by the staff to be liable to decrease activity on AG.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

1 The issues of favoritism were never concrete, and the subject was addressed ad nauseam.

I fail to see how this change is beneficial or in high demand.

2 The overhaul you refer to does not appear to be a point of contention. The link, as near as I can tell, demonstrates nothing.

Here's another link to give you an idea
It demonstrates the mismanaging of resources. I fail to see how this change is beneficial or in high demand.

3 The forum design disapproval consisted almost entirely of Matt disapproving of the decision to remove the Newcomers Forum despite his insistence that it was a bad idea.

I fail to see how this is change was beneficial or in high demand.

You want me to suggest ... criteria ... for when some unspecified evidence becomes credible evidence of something? Why? How does that relate to what we were discussing?

I disagree with your definition of 'baseness' towards arguments. (You stated baseness of an argument is one with substantive evidence in support of it) I was hoping we could reach an agreement on what we would call 'evidence' in determining the 'baseness' of an argument.

I'm not interested in discussing what he may or may not be aware of, nor is that pertinent to my suspicion that he was appealing to spite.

Ah, but you were disagreeing with his valuation of AG's business practices. Surely you would have some basis for this (or do you not?)

If I'm not mistaken, it's because AGU is something unaffiliated with AG on an external site and is considered by the staff to be liable to decrease activity on AG.

So as long it is affiliated (aka staff-approved), then sites that decrease activity on AG are okay.

I'm still waiting on your implementation examples by the way.

Graham
offline
Graham
8,092 posts
Peasant

In summary, I distrust the administration because of the following:

1. We do not know why nor agree with the reason for this new discord.

2. There is a deliberate non-participation and active censorship of long-standing active members of this community.

3. The Devoidless debacle: where an AG user of an unaffiliated chat was threatened with a ban for IP address logs to demod a user on this site for voicing negative opinions.

4. The lack of closure for the Verwaltung knighting incident, AG3, the Mystery of the Vanishing Newcomer's Thread, and having nothing fixed for paying users of ad-free-gaming subscription.

5. The mismanagement of resources, non-implementation of suggestions/criticism, and introduction of numerous poorly designed 3rd party softwares to replace an already functioning system.

6. Not remaining consistent and not following their own rule reasons.

7. Community activity on this site has plummeted to it being days/weeks for a response to any thread.

I wish I could say differently, and that my decade of being on this site wasn't filled with frought frustration.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

I fail to see how this change is beneficial or in high demand. [x3]
So?

Here's another link to give you an idea
Well, how does that help? It isn't even about a change. It's just a list of several suggested changes, some of which have since been implemented. What point are you trying to get across?

I disagree with your definition of 'baseness' towards arguments.
As a matter of fact, you don't. I did not define baseness; I gave a criterion for what constitutes having a base, as requested. Furthermore, what you consider 'evidence' is irrelevant. You wanted me to explain why a statement was in question. I did so. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through an infinite regression of definitions, not least because of your expressly stated distaste for arguing semantics.

Ah, but you were disagreeing with his valuation of AG's business practices.
Really? When?

I'm still waiting on your implementation examples by the way.
Good to know.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

So those things are not beneficial or in high demand, [...]
By Graham's estimate. Now, I'm not going to pretend to know all about what the general populace wants at any given time, but I would think that "Implement a live chat box", "Modify your profile page for custom "themes"", and "A way to edit posts for a brief period of time after posting" were all fairly high-up on the scale of demand.
Showing 31-45 of 49