Who says it's a protest? Is it that hard to believe that someone doesn't like this run?

Ok, I admit that I assumed his "no" vote was a voice of protest directed against overglitched runs in general. I admit that there's the possibility of this assumption was wrong. However, I have the strong feeling that it was exactly that.

The new glitch is interesting, and all, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell each Rockman 1 run from the last -- if this run weren't published, it wouldn't be a huge loss. After all, there's a great run of the same game, which is almost the same as this one, already. Which is why I'm voting Meh.

Dear Warp, Please stop posting. Sincerely, #nesvideos channel

What if someone felt this way: "I didn't like this run too much, like the previous times. Theoretically interesting, but not otherwise. I'd vote no, but I don't want to be caught doing a stupid action while simultaneously being bitched at for abusing the voting system." See the problem, guys? By hammering legitimacy of the voting system as you see it, you are attempting to rob it of its objectivity. This isn't the US presidential election. Our votes should actually mean something.

Ad Hominem : -A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute. -an argument "against the man" or person. This is a device employed to attack not the issues but rather the one you are arguing with, especially on a personal level or basis. It is usually employed by those whose arguments are weak (thanks Google!)

A logical fallacy is a line of argumentation which may in some contexts sound convincing, but does not in fact imply truth. For example, saying "all students own a calculator - my uncle owns a calculator - thus my uncle is a student" is a logical fallacy. It makes a claim ("my uncle is a student") and tries to give argumentations supporting this claim. Although it might in some situations sound credible, the logic does not hold, making it a fallacious argumentation. Argumentum ad hominem is also a similar logical fallacy. In a way you can think of it a bit like this: People who are not physicists don't know too much about gravity. Person X is not a physicist. Thus person X does not know too much about gravity. There's a logical fallacy there. The three sentences can be also expressed as I did in the earlier post: "He is not a physicist, thus everything he says about gravity is questionable." This is an argumentum ad hominem because it gives a fallacious line of argument to prove a claim. I don't see how a direct insult is a logical fallacy. If I say "you are an idiot", how is that trying to prove or disprove a claim through argumentation? Many sources give argumentum ad hominem an alternative expression: "Personal attack." However, in the context of logical fallacies it means a personal attack for a purpose: To try to discredit the person who makes the claim, thus making the claim questionable. In other words, the attack has to be somehow related to the original claim. Just saying "you are an idiot" is not such an argumentation. It's just insulting.

When you say "requesting honesty is futile", you're actually saying "I can't expect honesty from you." That is an act of attacking the person rather than their claims.

My impression was that he just voted "no" as a form of protest, perhaps even without having watched the movie, and only *afterwards* did he come up with his "opinion" that the video is "worse" then the previous one, and only because I mentioned that. However, even if this assumption of mine is true we will never know because I am quite certain he will never admit it. He will probably claim ad infinitum that he did honestly vote "no" because he thought that this video was worse than the previous one. This is what I meant with me not expecting him to honestly admit that. Sure, I can be wrong in this presumption.

Please stop posting.

Why? I can't stand other people's opinions (at least according to some) and thus I am not allowed to post mine either? Why is it precisely me who is requested to stop posting? Seemingly everyone else is allowed to post their final word on the subject, but I am requested to not to answer them? In other words, everyone else is entitled to their opinion and granted unrestricted posting, but I am the only one who should stop? Exactly why is this?

Because you post the same thing over and over? (just a guess)

essay mode: For starters, thanks for writing a boatload of text on what most of us already know. Thank god Warp is here to tell me what a logical fallacy is! I never said that your insults were the cause of your error: the fact that you are dismissing his comments and assuming the worst because of what he thinks is what makes you wrong. He dislikes super-glitched movies, and so he votes against a super-glitched movie. According to you, though, his attempt to give a valid opinion is actually 'sabotaging the voting system', though the only reason you can give for this is that you presume his reaction was kneejerk, rather than honest. You are claiming that his actions are... well, not wrong, but certainly not proper, despite the fact that he is well within the bounds of making applicable claims. You admit that you assumed that his vote was a form of protest, and that you believe that he is lying about what he says. That, in itself, is a personal attack on him: you think he is a liar. Due to this, you think it's logical to say that anything he says is questionable, and so any of his statements, including his initial claim that this movie is not entertaining, are of no merit. This is a logical fallacy. And yes, you can be wrong. Even if Necro voted against this movie because of it's glitch heavy nature, it is still accurate to his statement that glitched out movies are not interesting to him. So long as he did watch the movie before voting, Necro is 100% in the right for his actions, and you have no moral ground over him. Your attempts to dissuade actions like his is reprehensible because you're essentially saying that anyone who has a certain opinion that is in the very minority should not bother to bring it up, since it is futile to do so. Rather than assuming that an opposing view is wrong, why don't you instead see it as 'viable, but not agreeable?' No one has a right or wrong opinion, and to try to talk down to someone because of their beliefs is a very stupid thing to do. With that, I REALLY don't want to post in this thread anymore. I would have figure that when many many people started to tell you that you were wrong to decry Necro, you would maybe accept his stance. Instead, you have only admitted that you did make assumptions, though "you still have a strong feeling about them," which means bubkus. I mean, come on, is your name Nathan Jahnke now?

Because you post the same thing over and over? (just a guess)

The same thing? What same thing? I don't understand what you are talking about. The topic has remained the same for the last couple of dozen posts in this thread, yes, but isn't that normal? People make claims and ask questions, and other people answer them. And may I point out that I am not the only one who has made quite many posts about the same subject. Yet I am the only one who is requested to stop. I am accused of trying to impose rules on others, yet it feels like the other way around.

You have started this argument twice, and you have not said anything here that you didn't in the previous submission's thread. That's what I'm specifically referring to. Also a subtle reference to the fact that your posts are often very long (not saying this is automatically bad).

Zurreco's post is spot on Warp. Read it twice and take it to heart. There's always a chance to change.

You admit that you assumed that his vote was a form of protest, and that you believe that he is lying about what he says. That, in itself, is a personal attack on him: you think he is a liar. Due to this, you think it's logical to say that anything he says is questionable

I beg your pardon? I have never and nowhere said or implied that *anything* he says is questionable. I just questioned the veracity of *one* thing he said (ie. whether he truely voted "no" originally because he honestly thought this movie is worse than the previous one). When I wrote "I can't expect honesty from you" I was referring to that one claim. Sure, that sentence may be interpreted as me claiming that he lies always and everywhere, but it was not what I was trying to say when I wrote it. Your extrapolation from there is an exaggeration which is not true.

With that, I REALLY don't want to post in this thread anymore. I would have figure that when many many people started to tell you that you were wrong to decry Necro, you would maybe accept his stance.

It is logical that friends will defend friends. If a friend is being "attacked", everyone will come to his aid. The number of people defending him does not prove anything. Ironically, what you are proposing is probably an argumentum ad populum.

Instead, you have only admitted that you did make assumptions, though "you still have a strong feeling about them," which means bubkus.

I always try to be honest, and if I have made an accusation based on an assumption, I will admit that. However, "it was only an assumption, and assumptions are often wrong" is not an argument convincing enough, sorry.

It is logical that friends will defend friends.

I hate every single person that posted in this thread. This isn't about friends, it's about the collective polis rising up to help eachother quell a common enemy: arrogant douchebaggy instigators.

You have started this argument twice

I hate to nitpick, but that's not true. The previous thread was about whether glitches are a desired part of a TAS or not. This thread is not about that subject at all. I didn't argument against his opinion on that subject.

You have started this argument twice

I hate to nitpick, but that's not true. The previous thread was about whether glitches are a desired part of a TAS or not. This thread is not about that subject at all. I didn't argument against his opinion on that subject.

No you don't (Neither do I).

This isn't about friends, it's about the collective polis rising up to help eachother quell a common enemy: arrogant douchebaggy instigators.

Sticks and stones. Having group support must be a real comfort. You don't have to fight the "enemy" alone.

omG!!!!!!!!1 juss wacthed dis run. arsome!!!!!! yes vote!!!!!!!!!!2

I just voted no out of spite for Warp and hope he has a aneurysm. Zurreco: suck my poop that I made you eat that you pooped and I made you eat which contains my poop and yours.

I just voted no out of spite for Warp and hope he has a aneurysm.

Ah, yes, Bisqwit and Finalfighter really deserved that because I am such a despicable person. You can badmouth me all you want, I don't care, but do you really have to make your childish stunt on someone else's work? IMO they don't deserve that.

I'm not the one who turned this thread upside down because of one No vote. I'm not the one who doesn't know when to shut up. You're the one who started this. They certainly don't deserve what you started either. This thread is beyond hope. I may not be helping, but me not posting isn't going to help it. You should just admit you were wrong, stop posting here and maybe then this thread will get back on track.

I'm not the one who turned this thread upside down because of one No vote.

That's certainly true. It required quite many people to create such a flamewar. Without many people attacking each other there would indeed be no flamewar. You are part of it too, unfortunately.

I'm not the one who doesn't know when to shut up.

That doesn't seem to be so.

You're the one who started this. They certainly don't deserve what you started either.

So, because I, the very wicked and bad person, started a flamewar (kindly joined by many "helping" people), it is then completely ok for you to participate in the sabotage too. Yes, that makes sense. It really helped to stop the flamewar.

You should just admit you were wrong

I would readily admit being wrong if I had been proven wrong. Unfortunately this is something which is impossible to prove. Thus "admitting being wrong" would be lying to myself.

stop posting here and maybe then this thread will get back on track.

You should know by now that the more you keep taunting me, the longer the thread will be. Do you really expect me, the wicked bad agitator, to not to answer to an accusation? I am being insulted, words are put into my mouth, and my texts are interpreted in the most twisted ways in order to make me look completely horrible. Of course this is just ok, isn't it? I deserve that. I am the only guilty party here. I dared to accuse someone of dishonesty! That really deserves team punishment. Nobody else is guilty of anything because they fight for the good cause. The end justifies the means. Can you honestly say there was absolutely no overreaction to my original post? None at all?

Please settle your differences by PM. It's weird how we're supposed to be discussing a popular movie and yet this thread is derailed (now over 50% of the thread) just because of two or three posts.

AMAZING how easily off-topic is created!

---- By the way, I like the movie and I vote yes. The Wily 2 glitch was totally unexpected.

OgreSlayeR is gonna overreact his foot in to your mandibular joint if you don't listen up. Seriously though. Anyone posting below me that doesn't directly talk about this submission and only this submisison earns the Official Seal of Disapproval.