idiot

backstabber - flags and then attacks

backstabber ,piece of shit.

Honourable player.

Flagged the dude he accepted and later killed me to let his friend finish 2nd

dont trust him

How old are you mate? I accepted your flag (reluctantly ,because it upset my game plan, nonetheless accepted your flag. Two turns later , without warning you attacked me.Then berated(do you know what that means?)me and said that I upset your plans.As I saw it you flagged to me and I set about trying to win the game for myself not you.Please grow a dick or play scrabble or something that won't induce paranoia.Go have a knuckle shuffle on your piss pump you flea.Can't believe your'e anaussie.Shame Shame Shame.

pice of shit, no respect flags, kill that motherfucker asap

2011-01-11 Still attacking straw men, dudikoff writes: "educate yourself moron: http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm you described lol as metaphorical.. well there it is in the list of over 60 rhetorical devices... another one that suits how I used 'lol' is pleonasm, but the most accurate description of all would be that I used it as an 'apostrophe' in the rhetorical sense. like i said, you're a moron who thinks he knows it all, but actually knows very little." Of course THAT is true, but it still was, is, and always will be a dudikoff defending the indefensible use of "rhetorical." (1) dudikoff was TRYING to counter my jab about "lol" in which I was "amazed" that he would "lol" or "laugh out loud"--(2) dudikoff wrote at the time 'you failed to understand that lol is rhetorical, just like asking someone how they're going'--(3) dudikoff THEN and NOW fails to see that while he was being 'rhetorical' in that he did not want a reply, the 'rhetorical' element had NOTHING to do with what he should have said in reply--(4) because my point was the literal meaning of "lol" dudikoff and my 'amazement' that dudikoff would have really laughed out loud so much, dudikoff SHOULD HAVE addressed the literal versus figurative meaning of "lol" but dudikoff INSTEAD AND EMBARASSINGLY keeps defending his use of 'rhetorical'--(5) while all of dudikoff's subsequent crawling defense is absolutely correct in and of itself, it does not now and never has addressed his misunderstanding of the rhetoric of the chat or his misuse of 'rhetorical'--(6) perhaps dudikoff would understand better if I changed 'misuse' to 'unrelated' since he seems so stuck on the rhetorical element--(7) but the rhetorical element in and of itself is not the issue and never has been--(8) dudikoff's straw man (now he is reduced to one--defining rhetorical over and over--since he has conceded that I was right about his earlier pathetic attempts to make an issue of 'whining'/'whinging') is just that: a phony rhetorical device to draw attention away from his complete embarrassment at his misuse/unrelated use of 'rhetorical' in the original chat--(9) dudikoff continues to act as a KDice jerk but in his weaselly fashion prefers to avoid discussing THAT important question; he prefers to discuss less important matters that he can google without understanding--moral questions can't be googled so easily and moral questions would scare dudikoff if he could comprehend them--(10) HONOR BEFORE KDICE!--(11) we need not cede civilization to the dudikoffs of the world; fight them, embarrass them, make them examples, promote virtue, honor, wisdom, and justice; the dudikoffs can be ignored or laughed at, but that isn't enough--they must be put in their place so that other people will know that honor, justice, and wisdom have defenders and that they are not alone in working for the greater good--(12) we can look forward to dudikoff googling many more definitions of 'rhetoric' and its variations; fine and apt work for HIM--keep googling dudikoff ++++++++++ 2011-01-10 dudikoff was scarred for life when his mother breastfed him from falsies. dudikoff doesn't have enough points to play at my table; dudikoff barely has enough points to play at the 0 tables of life. Though a half-wit, dudikoff's handicap is no reason to gloat; neither is it an excuse to let him make a mess of reason or make Kdice worse for all. dudikoff wrote: "heathcliff fails to consider that two words could describe the same thing and both be correctly applied. The simplistic canine brain apparently can't cope with duality of meaning. It can only be 'whining' not 'whinging', it can only be 'literal' not 'rhetorical'. I no longer see any hope for reforming his mind, but perhaps obedience school can curb the aggressive and incorrect behaviour of trying to affix one 'true' label to everything." dudikoff is the 3-year-old making a big mess in 2 minutes; I am the adult taking far more time cleaning up his mess than he took to make it. dudikoff really seems to believe what he says, so I will say dudikoff unknowingly continues to attribute to me notions that I never put forward before nor endorse now. (1) I never said before and do not believe now that there cannot be a British/Australian version of 'whining' called 'whinging'; I said in the chat "do you mean 'whining'?" since I had never heard of 'whinging.' I am happy to learn of the British/Australian idiomatic equivalent to the word 'whining,' and I never denied its existence or the possibility of its existence. dudikoff should stop his whinging. See? I am happy to use a British/Australian idiom. (2) Poor dudikoff cannot live down his misuse of the word 'rhetorical' when he meant 'figuratively' or 'metaphorically.' Let us now return to dudikoff's original error--here is the pertinent portion of the chat: "dudikoff: lol ---------- oakcliff: really, you laughed out loud? ---------- oakcliff: amazing ---------- dudikoff: so you lost at the game, lost at words too ---------- oakcliff: "lost at words"--parse that a little better, please ---------- dudikoff: now you failed to understand that lol is rhetorical, just like asking someone how they're going." Even now dudikoff can't see his error when he said "lol is rhetorical." He meant "lol is used figuratively" or "lol is used metaphorically, not literally"--either would have been a correct response to my scornful jibe. dudikoff still insists and believes that "rhetorical" is correct there. No fully-witted or wise or reasonable man would agree. Again, the point is NOT whether dudikoff wanted a response to his "lol." The point is that dudikoff was attempting to counter-punch MY shot at him but he used the incorrect word; he said "rhetorical" when he meant "figuratively" or "metaphorically." Out of context, dudikoff can make any claim and it might seem reasonable; in context, within the chat we were having, there is no defending the use of the word "rhetorical." It is dudikoff's epic fail, as the kids would say. (3) dudikoff still fails to see the larger point. He prefers his straw man arguments--they comfort his simple mind. The larger point is that dudikoff is a KDice jerk. If he reforms himself, if he repents, if he starts acting kind, generous, and polite (even if he doesn't understand why he should), we will all happily accept him back into normal KDice society. There is faint hope of his reform. ++++++++++ 2011-01-09 As unoriginal as he is uninformed and illogical, dudikoff cut-and-paste a lengthy article onto 'his' review of me (who would believe dudikoff could even google?). At least he is trying to better himself. Good for dudikoff--dudikoffs need love, too. 2011-01-09 dudikoff writes: "oakcliff is a moron who thinks he's a genius... example 1: says 'lol' can't be considered rhetorical... dictionary disagrees: 'speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning' - which is exactly how I used it, to add emphasis to my scoffing remarks. most people realise that lol isn't always literal, not oakcliff! lol example 2: 'whinging' isn't a word according to oakcliff, yet it is used commonly in Australia and NZ. I guess oakcliff is like a dumb american who thinks 'realise' is spelled incorrectly (oakcliff, americans often use 'z' where those of commonwealth countries use 's' instead)... neither is more correct than the other. They say 'travel broadens the mind' so I hope oafcliff gets the opportunity one day. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing oakcliff develop his mental faculties further when he commences high school." Let us first note that dudikoff copies MY review style (a good model he must feel). Second, dudikoff can't follow the simple logic of rhetoric. In his haste to type, dudikoff again fails to follow the thread. dudikoff says that I say that 'lol' "can't be considered rhetorical"; of course I nowhere made that claim (funny that dudikoff would define his own writing as 'lacks true meaning'--in that belief we can join him). I believe that dudikoff doesn't know the difference or is highly embarassed by the fact that he wrote 'rhetorical' when he meant 'figuratively' or 'metaphorically.' Replace 'rhetorical,' which dudikoff misused and keeps trying to defend, with 'figuratively' and you will see that it now makes sense. Poor, poor dudikoff--stuck defending the emarbarassingly indefensible. Third, dudikoff still prefers to see the trees instead of the forest. Obnoxious, rude, and dishonorable is no way to go through life, though dudikoff chooses to do so. His choice is not our choice and we may note his passing with derision and, yet, sympathy. dudikoff may never have been taught better manners. When he joins us in the pursuit of wisdom, honor, and justice, we will welcome him with open arms. If he continues on his benighted path we will note it, make an example of him for others, and pass on. ++++++++++ 2011-01-09 dudikoff wants to be loved--he just has to pretend he doesn't (he is the 3rd grade boy, KDice is the 4th grade girl): "YES! PLEASE BAN ME FOREVER! THIS GAME IS SHIT AND I HATE EVERYONE HERE. DESPITE LITERALLY INSULTING MODERATORS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET BANNED, I CAN STILL USE THIS SITE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PEOPLE RUNNING THIS SITE???" Poor, poor dudikoff. He yearns for love and understanding. ++++++++++ 2011-01-03 dudikoff speaks! He is a 'chiefly british' idiom, if you know what I mean. Nasty, brutish, and short, his great countryman might say. Throw in 'rude' and 'dishonorable' and you have dudikoff well in mind. Honor before Kdice, dudikoff. Honor before Kdice. ++++++++++ [dudikoff has received flags from the 3rd place player and has decided the order of things to come as all bad 1st place players are wont to do.] ---------- dudikoff: ok, brown 3rd ---------- oakcliff: so you are trucing not flagging ---------- zrx: can i go out fight? [zrx is green] ---------- dudikoff: brown and green are helping me blue, I owe them ---------- oakcliff: then it is a truce, not a flag ---------- oakcliff: you three are truced--but i didn't see the brown truce, so is it a PGA? ---------- dudikoff: green, if you want 2nd then you should be helping me instead of weakening me ---------- zrx: teal gets the scepter ---------- oakcliff: you understand that accepting a flag does NOT mean you have to help someone, right? ---------- zrx: sure, but u attack teal ---------- dudikoff: YOU ATTACKED ME GREEN ---------- oakcliff: if i flag to you it means i won't attack you--if i truce with you it means we will help each other ---------- dudikoff: i understand that you were trying to take 1st from me, and it cost you 2nd place ---------- dudikoff: green, sit in ---------- oakcliff: that is a very simple way of looking at things--it fits ---------- dudikoff: simple is all it takes to beat a moron like you ---------- oakcliff: ganging up makes it simple for you, you mean ---------- dudikoff: i destroyed you mysel ---------- dudikoff: f ---------- oakcliff: trucing instead of flagging ---------- dudikoff: and you're crying about it ---------- dudikoff: you're upset because my tactics worked ---------- oakcliff: not at all--dishonorable people will always be with us ---------- dudikoff: lol ---------- dudikoff: loser ---------- oakcliff: your "tactic"? ---------- oakcliff: please ---------- dudikoff: whinging isn't a tactic loser ---------- zrx has left [Note: perhaps even zrx, who would have gotten 2nd, could not stand to be around dudikoff. zrx got 3rd because he sat out.] ---------- oakcliff: pathetic attempt to gain points i'll buy ---------- dudikoff: but nice try ---------- dudikoff: lol, all you got is whinging ---------- oakcliff: do you mean "whining"? ---------- dudikoff: dictionary.com ---------- dudikoff: i think you'll be surprised! [Note: 'chiefly british'] ---------- dudikoff: lol ---------- oakcliff: really, you laughed out loud? ---------- oakcliff: amazing ---------- dudikoff: so you lost at the game, lost at words too ---------- oakcliff: "lost at words"--parse that a little better, please ---------- dudikoff: now you failed to understand that lol is rhetorical, just like asking someone how they're going... you don't expect an answer ---------- oakcliff: rhetoric is not your strong suit ---------- dudikoff: only morons take everything literally ---------- dudikoff: bye moron ---------- dudikoff: 3 times you lost ---------- dudikoff has left ++++++++++ Poor dudikoff; half-educated at best. Just one example: misunderstanding the logic of the rhetoric. dudikoff does seem to understand that "rhetorical" means "you don't expect an answer," but that has nothing to do with the point. "lol" means "laugh out loud" (or it means nothing), so my point was that I was amazed that he would laugh out loud at that (and other) moments. Laughing out loud (lol) so much seems to be the characteristic of an extremely simple mind. Still, since it was already evident that dudikoff had at best a simple mind ("me good--you bad" is philosophy to dudikoff), I should NOT have been amazed. My bad. Also, those at the same table with dudikoff would benefit if he followed my motto: When 1st is in hand leave everyone alone unless attacked or stalemate. (I use 'stalemate' loosely to make the motto pithier. I mean by stalemate that someone will not flag and will not fight but just sits there.) The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do&#8212;in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored. The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face. If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy: DH0. Name-calling. This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this: u r a fag!!!!!!!!!! But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like The author is a self-important dilettante. is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag." DH1. Ad Hominem. An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond: Of course he would say that. He's a senator. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator? Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem&#8212;and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem. DH2. Responding to Tone. The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g. I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral. So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where. DH3. Contradiction. In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence. This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in: I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory. Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help. DH4. Counterargument. At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what. Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it. There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it. DH5. Refutation. The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find. To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man. While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0. DH6. Refuting the Central Point. The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent. Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like: The author's main point seems to be x. As he says: <quotation> But this is wrong for the following reasons... The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon. What It Means Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken. But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing. The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons. Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation. But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way. If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.I've thought a lot over the last couple years about the problem of trolls. It's an old one, as old as forums, but we're still just learning what the causes are and how to address them. There are two senses of the word "troll." In the original sense it meant someone, usually an outsider, who deliberately stirred up fights in a forum by saying controversial things. [1] For example, someone who didn't use a certain programming language might go to a forum for users of that language and make disparaging remarks about it, then sit back and watch as people rose to the bait. This sort of trolling was in the nature of a practical joke, like letting a bat loose in a room full of people. The definition then spread to people who behaved like assholes in forums, whether intentionally or not. Now when people talk about trolls they usually mean this broader sense of the word. Though in a sense this is historically inaccurate, it is in other ways more accurate, because when someone is being an asshole it's usually uncertain even in their own mind how much is deliberate. That is arguably one of the defining qualities of an asshole. I think trolling in the broader sense has four causes. The most important is distance. People will say things in anonymous forums that they'd never dare say to someone's face, just as they'll do things in cars that they'd never do as pedestrians&#8212;like tailgate people, or honk at them, or cut them off. Trolling tends to be particularly bad in forums related to computers, and I think that's due to the kind of people you find there. Most of them (myself included) are more comfortable dealing with abstract ideas than with people. Hackers can be abrupt even in person. Put them on an anonymous forum, and the problem gets worse. The third cause of trolling is incompetence. If you disagree with something, it's easier to say "you suck" than to figure out and explain exactly what you disagree with. You're also safe that way from refutation. In this respect trolling is a lot like graffiti. Graffiti happens at the intersection of ambition and incompetence: people want to make their mark on the world, but have no other way to do it than literally making a mark on the world. [2] The final contributing factor is the culture of the forum. Trolls are like children (many are children) in that they're capable of a wide range of behavior depending on what they think will be tolerated. In a place where rudeness isn't tolerated, most can be polite. But vice versa as well. There's a sort of Gresham's Law of trolls: trolls are willing to use a forum with a lot of thoughtful people in it, but thoughtful people aren't willing to use a forum with a lot of trolls in it. Which means that once trolling takes hold, it tends to become the dominant culture. That had already happened to Slashdot and Digg by the time I paid attention to comment threads there, but I watched it happen to Reddit. News.YC is, among other things, an experiment to see if this fate can be avoided. The sites's guidelines explicitly ask people not to say things they wouldn't say face to face. If someone starts being rude, other users will step in and tell them to stop. And when people seem to be deliberately trolling, we ban them ruthlessly. Technical tweaks may also help. On Reddit, votes on your comments don't affect your karma score, but they do on News.YC. And it does seem to influence people when they can see their reputation in the eyes of their peers drain away after making an asshole remark. Often users have second thoughts and delete such comments. One might worry this would prevent people from expressing controversial ideas, but empirically that doesn't seem to be what happens. When people say something substantial that gets modded down, they stubbornly leave it up. What people delete are wisecracks, because they have less invested in them. So far the experiment seems to be working. The level of conversation on News.YC is as high as on any forum I've seen. But we still only have about 8,000 uniques a day. The conversations on Reddit were good when it was that small. The challenge is whether we can keep things this way. I'm optimistic we will. We're not depending just on technical tricks. The core users of News.YC are mostly refugees from other sites that were overrun by trolls. They feel about trolls roughly the way refugees from Cuba or Eastern Europe feel about dictatorships. So there are a lot of people working to keep this from happening again.

no dumbarse, it's a perfectly valid response to explain that my usage was rhetorical when you confused it for being literal. You got further confused because my example was only broadly related. Since I immediately recognised that your question was rhetorical in itself (and that you weren't really wondering if I laughed out loud), I pointed out the naivety of your question. It was the naivety of treating rhetoric literally _in general_ that I addressed with my example. fool! lol