a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Since it's a "public game" like you say, if we all decide that dying of starvation is a bug then it becomes one... Yeah that's how dumb your logic is.
That isn't dumb at all Dodge. Such is consistent with the idea of something being in the public domain, that the public decides when things work one way or another. You complaining here shows that you don't want consistency.
The game code is made publicly available that means you can make you're own private server and change wathever you want on it, doesn't mean that the official game sold on steam and the website is public property though...
The website isn't the game, and thus irrelevant to what the game is. I never said anything about a website not being public property. You talking about such, shows how you didn't understand what I said above. Try getting smarter with respect to what you read Dodge.
The game is public property since it's public domain. Always has been and always will be. The term 'official' just refers to something getting administered, as if there exists an *office* where someone oversees whatever qualifies as official. There is no unique "official game". A server can get said to officiate a game, since it manages it. All servers do officiate the game, and thus all servers are equal with respect to officiating a game. So to speak clearly, every game hosted on one server is as much "the official game" as any other game on any other server.
Pretty sure you're gonna hit me with the "He SeLlS tHe AcCeSs To SeRvEr NoT tHe GaMe", but Spoon just use common sense i'm talking about the official version on official servers
Again, "official version" would just mean an administered version. But, every game we're talking about here, is administered by some server. Thus, *every* version is as much as "the official version" as every other version.
and the way it's played which is decided in the end by only one person
No Dodge and what you say here is quite revealing. Jason never decided how anyone else would play. He didn't use any real world threats to coerce player behavior. Players other than him ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL decide how they play the game. That also shows why Jason talking about using "force" for player behavior made little sense a while back, since there was no force used and shouldn't have been any force with respect to player behavior. Motivation for players is another matter, and not using force motivates players more than were force used.
the dev himself, you can suggest him wathever you want he doesn't have to do anything about it since he decides how the official version is played.
No, Jason decides how he plays. He doesn't decide how anyone else plays.
Sure the mushroom effect continuing over lives was most likely initially not intended, he found it funny and chose to keep it, so now in the version played on official servers it is NOT a bug, doesn't matter how many players think differently, or even have an opinion on that matter anyway...
Again, the game is open source and in the public domain. For anyone who cares about consistency, it thus does matter what the public thinks, since for something public domain, what the public thinks best matters more than anything else. If one doesn't want to care about what the public thinks with respect to what is and what is not a bug or feature, then it makes little sense to put something in the public domain.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
...
Ah yes arguing the definition of "official" and say that it requires an office instead of using your brain to understand... absolute pure genius 5/5
So Jason doesn't decide what colors are going to be the trees or how the temperature works on the version played on the servers accessible on steam or by purchase on his website hmmmm... So players can just choose to be hotter just by the power of their minds instead of needing a fire or clothes like Jason decided the game would work hmmm...
He chose to make/keep the mushroom effect carrying over lives and therefore it's not a bug, say wathever you want it aint going to change that fact.
So yeah absolutly retarded take on your part as usual
Offline
Gentlemen gentlemen, lets remember to be nice here. Spoon is being spoon and should just be ignored instead of engaged with.
Worlds oldest SID baby.
Offline
Ah yes arguing the definition of "official" and say that it requires an office instead of using your brain to understand.
No it doesn't say that. It says that it requires something *resembling* the function of an office.
So Jason doesn't decide what colors are going to be the trees or how the temperature works on the version played on the servers accessible on steam or by purchase on his website
No, that doesn't follow. It also doesn't imply anything of note either.
So players can just choose to be hotter just by the power of their minds instead of needing a fire or clothes like Jason decided the game would work
That doesn't follow either.
He chose to make/keep the mushroom effect carrying over lives and therefore it's not a bug, say wathever you want it aint going to change that fact.
It's not a fact that it's not a bug. Facts have to have objective reality and for something to have objective reality more than one person deciding on things is necessary, except for private property. The game is NOT in the domain of private property and never has been. Again, for a public domain game, if we are consistent, then what is and what is not a bug gets determined by the public.
You can say whatever you want and so can anyone else. Really, you have been doing that by ignoring what I've said instead of addressing the argument. Simply put what you've said won't change that if we are consistent, then for a game in the public domain, what is and what is not a bug gets determined by the public.
I also don't appreciate your insults Dodge. They are out of line. They show how little you understand, and show your unwillingness to even address what has gotten asserted.
Mods might not do anything, but if so, that says something more about them, than your misbehavior.
Last edited by Spoonwood (2021-05-22 18:51:26)
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Yeah there's really no point in trying to make you understand, some people just cant admit when they are wrong, very insecure.
Offline
But "insecure" means you are not sufficiently attached to something and Spoon is very attached being right.
Logically, it follows that he is very secure.
Offline
But "insecure" means you are not sufficiently attached to something and Spoon is very attached being right.
Logically, it follows that he is very secure.
Are you seriously pulling some Spoon logic right now? Trolling?
Pretty sure you're joking but just in case if you are secure in yourself then admiting to yourself that you're wrong is not an issue, it doesn't change anything about you, anyone can be wrong and learn from it, if you are insecure on the other hand then admiting you're wrong is like admiting that you are wrong as a person almost as if something is wrong about you instead of just being wrong about something.
Maybe you're confusing the definition of insecure for an object and not a person:
"1.
not firm or fixed; liable to give way or break.
"an insecure footbridge"
2.
(of a person) uncertain or anxious about oneself; not confident.
"a rather gauche, insecure young man""
Offline
Lol. Yeah, I was just kidding around.
Sometimes I try to imagine the world as Spoon must see it. Can you imagine how hard it would be function if you took everything so literally? Someone tells you to take a hike and you wonder why they want you to go out and enjoy nature. Another person asks what your problem is, but acts surprised when you tell them in detail. People keep using the wrong meanings of common words and fail to follow formal logic during normal conversation.
It would be maddening, don't you think?
Offline
Someone tells you to take a hike and you wonder why they want you to go out and enjoy nature.
lmao, i can totally picture that.
It would be maddening, don't you think?
yeah i cant imagine spending more than 10 minutes with someone that would constantly try to correct you or continually argue about the meaning of common words.
Offline
Yeah there's really no point in trying to make you understand, some people just cant admit when they are wrong, very insecure.
This is just you again trying to avoid reasoning, because you don't have anything to back up your position. So, you say things like this to try to persuade other people, instead of admitting that you don't have anything to support your position.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline
Lol. Yeah, I was just kidding around.
Sometimes I try to imagine the world as Spoon must see it. Can you imagine how hard it would be function if you took everything so literally? Someone tells you to take a hike and you wonder why they want you to go out and enjoy nature. Another person asks what your problem is, but acts surprised when you tell them in detail. People keep using the wrong meanings of common words and fail to follow formal logic during normal conversation.
It would be maddening, don't you think?
The idea of "public domain" is a literal concept.
Danish Clinch.
Longtime tutorial player.
Offline