253: abandon me harder daddy

[ryanongosling]

Please mark any spoilers clearly and try not to spoil stuff that hasn't even aired yet for people.

Keep the rules in mind.

LATEST PAGE | LATEST FLATVIEW PAGE

Game Hate | Canon Hate | Namedropping | Mods' Pet Peeves | Game Pet Peeves | Plurk Pet Peeves | Meme Pet Peeves

Report stupid shit here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

yep. just the weirdest thing to high horse about. we're all at the devil's sacrament.

Da

[(Anonymous)]

And yet a lot of anons here do judge those who log in (whether to clear the air or not).

Why do you think they always say," Never log in. It will always turn out bad for you" whenever someone does? Don't be a hypocrite.

sa

[(Anonymous)]

how am i a hypocrite by asking what is the logic behind that judgement?

if anything, i think it's hypocrisy for any of us who are on wankgate to be judging people for logging in and therefore 'proving' they are also on wankgate.

Re: sa

[(Anonymous)]

sorry, i'm ayrt, not sa.

Re: sa

[(Anonymous)]

"logging in" generally implies "to defend yourself". once in a blue moon this works when someone shows up, slaps down crystal-clear deets, and lets them speak for themselves. more commonly, the person who logs in only makes things worse for themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 I don't remember a time when logging in here to defend themselves has gone well.

Re: PLURK PET PEEVES

[(Anonymous)]

we owe eric an apology

[(Anonymous)]

we all agree that the rule against wanking on games that aren't open yet is to keep these games from being ruined before they have a chance, right?

based on that, we should be allowed to wank on games that are never going to open.

[(Anonymous)]

this is weird of you tbh

[(Anonymous)]

pointing and laughing is at least half of wankgate

Re: PLURK PET PEEVES

[(Anonymous)]

extrapolate

[(Anonymous)]

+1 it's this. it's always someone who was namedropped and probably accused of being unhinged, overinvested, or controlling and people who log in tend to come off as unhinged, overinvested, and desperate to control the narrative (usually to suggest they were the victim)

Re: PLURK PET PEEVES

[(Anonymous)]

*elaborate

[(Anonymous)]

first you'll have to consult with the mods and have them issue an official wankgate poll + decree that we've unanimously decided the game not allowed to live

after that we can get started launching the collective

good luck

[(Anonymous)]

wankgate 2?

[(Anonymous)]

no it's all fair game

Re: sa

[(Anonymous)]

yeah, logging in to defend yourself in a tone-deaf manner is often just bad optics and unlikely to go down well. what i initially responded to, though, was someone calling out beck for logging in and 'proving' she goes here, which... of all the things to pick on that imbecile for, that one is just bizarre, and i've seen that kind of thinking here before.

Re: sa

[(Anonymous)]

I mean....she came here to defend herself.... dropping caps that made her look worse. In a game thread she had dropped over 6 months ago. Meaning, she must have had that game thread tracked, participated, and talked in it from the time she joined and well after she dropped.

Because why else would anyone give a fuck about what anons say in a game they left that long ago?

So. Yeah?

Re: sa

[(Anonymous)]

and she might be a shitposter

[(Anonymous)]

it went okay for jormy

Re: PLURK PET PEEVES

[(Anonymous)]

*evaporate

[(Anonymous)]

farts loudly

Re: PLURK PET PEEVES

[(Anonymous)]

*expectorate

+1000

[(Anonymous)]

she does this with every game. this is what the big deal is. not just that she goes here (we're all here; that point on its own is kind of silly). it's that it demonstratively proved she'd been shitstirring for a long time.

Re: +1000

[(Anonymous)]

i can't believe i have to spell this out, but logging in demonstrably proves that you visited wankgate once. everything else is an assumption.