User talk:Kingkolton9: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 21:39, 20 May 2015

Welcome to IMFDB

Before you do any editing please take the time to read the Rules, Standards and Principles. This is a very important document that explains how this website is setup as well as telling you what is and isn't allowed. If it is determined by an admin that you have not read these rules, your account will be suspended. Continued non-compliance may result in a permanent ban. After that you should also read the IMFDB Screencapping Guide and the IMFDB Style Guide to familiarize yourself with the image and formatting requirements for pages you create.

There are a number of pages that desperately need your help. You can find these Incomplete pages here.

If you have any questions, feel free to post them here but make sure to sign your post by typing --~~~~.

Finally, IMFDB has a forum set up here that is only available to registered members. There is lots of good stuff to see there. If you would like to join the forum, please post HERE and an account will be created for you.

Now, HAPPY EDITING! bunni (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2014 (EST)

Black Mesa Source SPAS

The animation for the double fire is this. The wiki is wrong. It is also not mechanically possible to fire the SPAS twice in a row while it's still in in pump-action mode anyway. Evil Tim (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2015 (EDT)

The wiki is official. If you do not like it, I suggest you take it up with the mod creators.

"It is also not mechanically possible to fire the SPAS twice in a row while it's still in in pump-action mode anyway."

Yes, you can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrawMKpTscs

The wiki doesn't overrule reality, and I'm not convinced how "official" a claim added to a wiki which seems to have open registration by someone with a grand total of 11 edits is. And you cannot fire two sequential shots from a SPAS-12 in pump-action mode without operating the action between them. I know you can fire it more than once, there wouldn't be much point to having a magazine tube on a shotgun if it didn't use it. Evil Tim (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2015 (EDT)

Oh, but yes it does. Content that has not been added to the game yet, redesigns, maps, and other info are posted to the wiki and forums before they are put into the game. By the creators, I must add. A good example: The screens above the security guard in Anomalous have been made bigger, the lighting is in the process of being redone, many appliances around the facility are being redesigned, and the game is being ported over to a different version of the source engine (Speculated to be Source 2, because of Black Mesa's NDA with Valve), etc.

"and I'm not convinced how "official" a claim added to a wiki which seems to have open registration by someone with a grand total of 11 edits is."

It's on the project's official website. Although, I am confused as to how someone edits a closed wiki 11 times without registration? But, you can always ask on the forums. If it's on the wiki, the creators will be happy to tell you whether or not it's already in there, planned, or not true, and the community at large are happy to berate you about the wiki.

"And you cannot fire two sequential shots from a SPAS-12 in pump-action mode without operating the action between them"

You cannot do that on any gun that is not automatic. That's teleportation, and if it happens, you should consult a physicist. Preferably one working in New Mexico at a top-secret research facility built on and inside a mesa who is working on teleportation and has used a Spas 12. [/sarcasm]

"I know you can fire it more than once"

Apparently not, "It is also not mechanically possible to fire the SPAS twice in a row while it's still in in pump-action mode anyway."

"there wouldn't be much point to having a magazine tube on a shotgun if it didn't use it."

If you didn't use the tube, where would you put the ammo? Just curious. You know, it's not like we're talking about a video game that's still in development or anything...

Lose the attitude, if you seriously read that as me claiming you can't fire a tube magazine shotgun more than once without reloading it you are assuming I'm an idiot. By "twice in a row" I mean you can't just pull the trigger twice without doing anything else and fire two shots, that should be obvious from context. And it is in pump action mode when the animation completes, since he operates the action without ejecting a third round that was chambered when the second shot cycled the action.

You are trying to convince me that a SPAS-12 can fire an ultrafast 2-round burst like it's an AN-94. It cannot do that. You can fire it in semi-auto, that's true, but I've seen videos of Patrick Flannigan unloading 12 rounds from a shotgun in 1.2 seconds and you can still hear individual gunshots and see the weapon recoiling with each individual round fired, which you can't here, it is literally just one sound and one action. To fire it as shown in the game would require you, in the space of a split second, switch it to semi auto, fire one shot, switch it back to pump action as soon as it's cycled (and probably faster than it actually can cycle), and fire another shot, all without actually touching the fire selector.

If the wiki is "closed" as you claim and everyone on it is official, how would any user have so few edits? Seems to me it's a normal wiki that requires registration, rather like this one. I'm not going to take that as meaning the animation in the game shows two sequential shots when it doesn't. If they intended it to show two shots, they failed to do so. Evil Tim (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2015 (EDT)

"Lose the attitude, if you seriously read that as me claiming you can't fire a tube magazine shotgun more than once without reloading it you are assuming I'm an idiot. "

I knew exactly what you meant. If you want someone to not have "attitude," it's best to not have it yourself. Just a tip.

"You are trying to convince me that a SPAS-12 can fire an ultrafast 2-round burst like it's an AN-94."

Nope. In games, it can. Or, on auto, like the soldiers in the game do. They also never reload.

"It cannot do that."

On auto it can. Or, if you set up an animation to do it.

"You can fire it in semi-auto, that's true, but I've seen videos of Patrick Flannigan unloading 12 rounds from a shotgun in 1.2 seconds and you can still hear individual gunshots and see the weapon recoiling with each individual round fired, which you can't here, it is literally just one sound and one action."

Correct. However, have you considered that the reason why that was put on the page was because one of the developers mentioned it? I do recall a thread after release where some of the developers mentioned a weapons revamp. And, considering the shotgun is the slowest weapon in the game in reload time and time to empty the gun (Not counting the experimental weapons), the double shot wouldn't have to be inhumanly fast. Just slightly-faster than normal, or it could be switched to auto mode. That is pure speculation, but what isn't is that the wiki says that it fires two shots in rapid succession.

"To fire it as shown in the game would require you, in the space of a split second, switch it to semi auto, fire one shot, switch it back to pump action as soon as it's cycled (and probably faster than it actually can cycle), and fire another shot, all without actually touching the fire selector."

Which, I agree, is ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that I thought you could do that with a spas 12 in real life? Hell, Freeman wouldn't be able to reload the way he does in real life. But, this is a game we're talking about, here. I, too thought what the wiki says was ridiculous, and considering it hasn't been removed since 2013, either nobody has noticed it, which I find rather unlikely, or it was meant to be that way.

It's literally on the project site: www.blackmesasource.com. I don't claim that everyone on the wiki is official. However, there's 49 developers working on the project right now. I think it's kind of hard to believe that of them, no one noticed such a glaring error on one of their pages, especially on a wiki that normally isn't updated that often, except by them.

Please do not claim you know what I meant better than I did. If I were being more precise I would have said "cannot fire two times in a row without operating the action," but I figured mentioning it was in pump-action mode would make that obvious.

And you are ignoring that I linked you to a video of the animation. Unless you have a video of a newer animation which does not clearly show one muzzle flash and a single sound effect where the ammo counter is instantly incremented by two rounds, I'm going to assume that's still the animation in the game and take it as better evidence than something that may or may not be true added by someone who edited a wiki 11 times in September 2013 and then never again (citation). It's pointless speculating on what the developers did or did not intend because we're talking about what they did do, not what they intended to do. Evil Tim (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2015 (EDT)

":Please do not claim you know what I meant better than I did. If I were being more precise I would have said "cannot fire two times in a row without operating the action," but I figured mentioning it was in pump-action mode would make that obvious."

I never claimed that. It wasn't a matter of "being precise," it was a matter of you not getting your idea across. Please try to think out your comments better.

"And you are ignoring that I linked you to a video of the animation."

And you are ignoring what the official wiki says.

"Unless you have a video of a newer animation which does not clearly show one muzzle flash and a single sound effect where the ammo counter is instantly incremented by two rounds, I'm going to assume that's still the animation in the game and take it as better evidence than something that may or may not be true added by someone who edited a wiki 11 times in September 2013 and then never again."

The game actually got a Steam release today, with updated models, textures, animations, bug fixes, post-processing, optimization and added content, so I'll buy it and get video, because I'm betting they changed the animations in *some* way.

citation needed on that whole "13 times and never again" thing.

Or it was a matter of you assuming I was seriously arguing you can't fire a pump-action shotgun more than once, which is a ridiculous way to parse that statement.

I don't care what the official wiki says, we are a secondary source, not a tertiary source, and so the fact that a statement that contradicts visual evidence can be sourced is completely irrelevant. And do you really not know how to check the history of a page and then from that check how many contributions a user made and when? If not, here, 11 times and never again. Evil Tim (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

Guess what

https://youtu.be/wKTvp7naj68?t=6990

They didn't change that it's an instantaneous double shot (the first shot he fires after that link is double). So, case closed. Evil Tim (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

Case NOT closed. The game was released today. Not yesterday, today. If you can't tell, he isn't playing a final version because the lighting and textures are of poorer quality than the final game. Also, he isn't playing in-game, he's playing death match. Weapons always work slightly different in Half Life's deathmatches.

It doesn't matter whether or not we're a secondary or tertiary source, nor whether or not you care. The official wiki says what the official wiki says. I can check, and did (I knew what user made those edits.) However, it's not my job to. Your claim, your source.

Really, I wasn't aware the Deathmatch was the singleplayer level "We've Got Hostiles" (to be exact, he's here). He's playing an early release copy of the final game in singleplayer, and so unless you think they would change how the SPAS-12 works in one day, that's almost certainly the final animation. The poor lighting and textures are because that video is currently only 360p, since it's taking Youtube time to process his 7-hour video.

And why would I need to source statements you claim you already checked? I don't have to prove anything to you, you're supposed to be trying to prove your assertion to me last I checked. You're the one trying to make a change here and claiming that a statement on a wiki magically overrides observation of what actually happens in the game. It does matter that we're not a tertiary source, because only a tertiary source regards citations as being more important than direct observation of the primary source. Evil Tim (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

The team used some in-game levels for deathmatch. And, no, he's not. He's playing a development copy. Not a release copy. They're 2 separate things. It's not because the video's 360p, it's because it's a development copy. Video quality has nothing to do with the engine its self *unless* you're using demos and he's clearly not.

Simple: It doesn't matter if I've checked them. It's your claim and your job to cite said claim. Oh, yes, you do. You're making a claim. This is a wiki. Cite your shit. Regardless of whether or not someone else is proving someone else, you made a claim.

The official wiki does. It's a more "official" source than this site.

And, no, a tertiary source does not do that. A tertiary source is the third source in a chain. That's it.

Only it's obviously singleplayer because if you wind back to the beginning of the video, it's the start of the singleplayer campaign. Did you bother to check this at all, or are you just trying to rationalise some way I might still be wrong by pulling excuses out of thin air? And how do you know it's a development copy, other than that you don't have an argument anymore if it isn't one?

Wikipedia and other wikis like it attempt to be true tertiary sources by presenting no claims which have not already been asserted by someone else, which is why they demand citations. As a secondary source, IMFDB also allows for the making of arguments using original research, such as direct evaluation of sources. For example, I can present the actual game as proof the wiki is incorrect, regardless of any supposed "authority" that wiki might have.

Regardless, I do not have to cite things that you can easily check up yourself, that's just a cheap delaying tactic. I have clear observational proof of my claims, you have an edit made in 2013 by someone called "RandomGuy96." You will have to excuse me for not finding this particularly compelling. Evil Tim (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

And it is indeed the same animation in the version currently on Steam, as you could have checked yourself with impulse 101 if you'd wanted to. Evil Tim (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2015 (EDT)

Also re: your assertion that the wiki is constantly updated: history of the mod last updated 2013, about the mod last updated 2012, current events ending in 2011, last new file in 2013. I would say "abandoned" is a more accurate description of that wiki, and since almost all activity seems to conclude around the end of 2013 and the change you're citing is from just before that, it is very possible that the change is an incorrect one nobody noticed. Hell, it took them almost a year to notice this, on a major category page! Evil Tim (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2015 (EDT)

Actually, you do have to cite them. Try that shit when writing an article and see how it flies.

Oh, and I just played the game, and guess what? The gun is now *clearly* firing two shells; the sound of the fire is replayed twice in quick succession. I told you!

I never said the wiki was constantly updated. Try reading properly.

It's nice to know that you think you're in a position to correct the administrators on what the rules are. You are not.

The sound effect being doubled up has nothing to do with the visual effect of the gun firing once. It's also still too fast to be two shots and the gun only ejects one casing. This also evades that your original argument was about the 2012 version, which doesn't even have a doubled-up sound effect and was based on using an appeal to authority to contradict visual evidence.

It doesn't matter that you didn't specifically say the wiki is updated constantly: you did use "surely they would have spotted it." Your central argument was that it is the "official" wiki and therefore has developer authority, and that is destroyed entirely if it is just an abandoned wiki that happens to be hosted on the developers' server. Evil Tim (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (EDT)

"It's nice to know that you think you're in a position to correct the administrators on what the rules are. You are not."

So, I can edit any page without proof and my edit will stay up? I don't see how you being an admin makes any of your statements more valid. If someone's wrong, they're wrong.

"Your central argument was that it is the "official" wiki and therefore has developer authority, and that is destroyed entirely if it is just an abandoned wiki that happens to be hosted on the developers' server"

It's not abandoned, though. It just had an edit 3 days ago as a change to the team members page. I don't see how that counts as abandoned, and I don't see why the developers wiki shouldn't be treated as an official source of information. They made it, host it, upload and change things (Though, I will admit that the forums are used more than anything else, anymore) and the content's there.

"The sound effect being doubled up has nothing to do with the visual effect of the gun firing once. It's also still too fast to be two shots and the gun only ejects one casing. This also evades that your original argument was about the 2012 version, which doesn't even have a doubled-up sound effect and was based on using an appeal to authority to contradict visual evidence."

It has nothing to do with the visuals, right, but it does have to deal with double firing. I think there are 2 shells ejected now as well with the latest patch. Not only that, but the gun can't be fired as quickly after a double shot vs. firing twice with the single fire. They removed muzzle flashes from single player and multiplier because they were bugged to hell. I think that it's pretty confident that one can say that they're not being fired at the same time.

Also, I'd like to be pointed out where it says in the rules that one can be banned for telling specific people the rules. I believe that my ban message stated that I was banned for "continuously telling an admin the rules."

I don't feel we're going anywhere with this. You obviously lack knowledge of how wikis work if you don't know how to perform a simple task like check your user logs for ban reasons (it's in the sidebar), don't understand how our rules work and are unwilling to try to understand, and have a fairly flimsy knowledge of how videogames work (what exactly do you think a longer pause after double fire is supposed to mean?). You were given an opportunity to correct your attitude and approach this as a discussion rather than an attempt to dictate your terms to us, and you didn't take it. Evil Tim (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

Another Member's Plea

For the record, all I am is just another user - Who personally happens to be tired of your smart-assed condescending attitude and bullshit. I've seen people perma-banned for much less. This issue (of which no one really seems to give a damn about other than you) aside, you are most definitely not in any position to decide how things are done here. There is nothing ambiguous about that to me, nor does it appear to be up for debate either. If you don't like that, tough shit - No one's making you stay. There's only one thing that happens to those who not only believe they can disregard the established standards of the site (one of which is that nothing overrides visual evidence - if the gun visually fires both barrels - then that's pretty much that) but feel they can argue incessantly with the site's admins over it: They went away. For good. The same will happen to you too at this rate. One member to another, I strongly suggest that, if you have any interest in remaining on here, you change your manner and demeanor going forward. StanTheMan (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2015 (EDT)

"For the record, all I am is just another user - Who personally happens to be tired of your smart-assed condescending attitude and bullshit."

I'm not the only one that's been a condescending here. I mirror what I see. And, from reading the rest of your comment, it seems you need to take you own advice.

Someone else falls off a bridge, you're gonna fall off too? The precipitation doesn't matter, it doesn't make your condescension any more ok. And talk about 'mirroring' all you want but the root of this still seems to be you. StanTheMan (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

"This issue (of which no one really seems to give a damn about other than you)"

That devalues the issue, how?

There are other pages here that are lacking and could better benefit from the amount of attention you're giving this one issue, which appears to be of, at best, exceedingly marginal value to the site as a whole - Right or wrong what would it change really? Are you here to prove you're right about an infinitesimal matter regardless of this site or are you here to actually help and contribute to the site? Frankly it seems more of former to me. It's a shame because you seem like you'd be a good contributor to other parts and pages here if you weren't so hung up on this one thing to the exclusion of the rest of the site. StanTheMan (talk)

"you are most definitely not in any position to decide how things are done here."

Point to me where I said I was.

Well, you had told Evil Tim "Actually, you do have to cite sources". Whether that is true or not, last I checked, again, you're not one to tell anyone they 'do have' to do anything here. Other than that, you're clearly showing an attitude of wanting to make yourself right regardless of the site's established standards and principles - that is clear regardless of what you actually say. StanTheMan (talk)

"There is nothing ambiguous about that to me, nor does it appear to be up for debate either."

I agree.

The attitude you've displayed throughout apparently doesn't. StanTheMan (talk)

"if the gun visually fires both barrels - then that's pretty much that"

Let me understand something, then. I'm not stating this is the current case, but I am asking a genuine question:

If an animation was bugged, but a developer didn't notice it, and as such it was never fixed until later, or the wrong animation was placed in, does that mean that it's objectively the correct animation?

In fact, I'm willing to be mature about this if others are: I've talked with one of the devs before on multiple occasions. I'll ask him about it. I'll ask him why the animation is the way it is and what they've done or intend to do with it. Would a public message from a developer saying what's what about the animation, even if it's not in the game as of yet, be enough for everyone?

Until you actually get anything concrete, it's all supposition. Which is irrelevant for our purposes, as Tim told you. On main pages, we deal with established fact, supposition and assumption stays on discussion pages until it's determined what the fact of the matter is. And the ultimate fact is we go by what is seen - Visual evidence is paramount. What's intended, what might have happened or what was supposed to happen IS IRRELEVANT. None of that matters unless its material. Movies may 'intend' for US Army soldiers to have M16A2 rifles but a film armorer might have only M16A1s with A2 handguards. We therefore state the gun is an M16A1 with A2 handguards, we don't list it as as M16A2 when it clearly isn't with a bunch of conjecture as to why it isn't.

"but feel they can argue incessantly with the site's admins over it"

So, admins are always right 100% of the time without fault? Good to know.

No, but arguing without end over such a minor issue with an admin to the point of being banned and then going right back to it doesn't make you right either. Just obnoxious. If you get something that meets the burden of proof (and that it is on you, you're the one who brought this up), I'm sure Tim will be happy to allow the edits/changes to be made. Until then you haven't established you're right either on the issue, while your attitude and demeanor is definitely not right regardless. At least not I see it.

"One member to another, I strongly suggest that, if you have any interest in remaining on here, you change your manner and demeanor going forward."

You sure don't seem like you want me here. In fact, I'm confused about what you're pleading for, exactly. I haven't vandalized any pages; I'm not going to blindly edit the Black Mesa page with information that may or may not be incorrect until the issue is resolved. Call me what you want: I'm not a vandal. I've not spammed anyone's userpage; discussion on mine has been rather slow. I've only been overly-condescending, something that I feel that EvilTim was to me.

I'm pleading for you - if what you're really interested in is contributing to the site - to cut the attitude, which is unacceptable regardless of your issue, regardless of you being right or wrong or indifferent. I've seen people be right and still get banned because they decided to start being foul and rude and condescending to other people, much like you are now. If you were to just cut back on sounding like a talking-down smart-ass, it's quite possible Evil Tim will reciprocate and will be appreciated by more than just him. That you aren't as bad as others who have been banned doesn't make you exempt from having poor attitude. And being an asshole back to another asshole doesn't make you exempt either. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is my point. Whatever your issue, you're not going to get anywhere continuing to present yourself as you are. That is my plea here. If you're going to get concrete evidence of your claim, perhaps it's best to just cease discussion until then, because more of it will at best get you nowhere and at worst get you banned again. I can't make my concerns and points any clearer and don't care to either. I'm just giving some advice, take it or leave it - I don't really need a reply. StanTheMan (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 "and I'm not convinced how "official" a claim added to a wiki which seems to have open registration by someone with a grand total of 11 edits is."
 It's on the project's official website. Although, I am confused as to how someone edits a closed wiki 11 times without registration? But, you can always ask on the forums. If it's on the wiki, the creators will be happy to tell you whether or not it's already in there, planned, or not true, and the community at large are happy to berate you about the wiki.
@@ Line 124: / Line 126: @@
 ::And it is indeed the same animation in the version currently on Steam, as you could have checked yourself with impulse 101 if you'd wanted to. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 23:03, 5 May 2015 (EDT)
-::Also re: your assertion that the wiki is constantly updated: [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/index.php?title=History_of_the_Mod&action=history history of the mod] last updated 2013, [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/index.php?title=Black_Mesa:About_the_Mod&action=history about the mod] last updated 2012, [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/Black_Mesa:Current_events current events] ending in 2011, [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/Special:NewFiles last new file] in 2013. I would say "abandoned" is a more accurate description of that wiki, and since almost all activity seems to conclude around the end of 2013 and the change you're citing is from just before that, it is ''very'' possible that the change is an incorrect one nobody noticed. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 03:23, 6 May 2015 (EDT)
+::Also re: your assertion that the wiki is constantly updated: [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/index.php?title=History_of_the_Mod&action=history history of the mod] last updated 2013, [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/index.php?title=Black_Mesa:About_the_Mod&action=history about the mod] last updated 2012, [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/Black_Mesa:Current_events current events] ending in 2011, [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/Special:NewFiles last new file] in 2013. I would say "abandoned" is a more accurate description of that wiki, and since almost all activity seems to conclude around the end of 2013 and the change you're citing is from just before that, it is ''very'' possible that the change is an incorrect one nobody noticed. Hell, it took them almost a year to notice [http://wiki.blackmesasource.com/index.php?title=Category:Weapons&diff=next&oldid=11748 this], on a major category page! [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 03:23, 6 May 2015 (EDT)
+Actually, you do have to cite them. Try that shit when writing an article and see how it flies.
+Oh, and I just played the game, and guess what? The gun is now *clearly* firing two shells; the sound of the fire is replayed twice in quick succession. I told you!
+I never said the wiki was constantly updated. Try reading properly.
+:It's nice to know that you think you're in a position to correct the administrators on what the rules are. You are not.
+:The sound effect being doubled up has nothing to do with the visual effect of the gun firing once. It's also still too fast to be two shots and the gun only ejects one casing. This also evades that your original argument was about the 2012 version, which doesn't even have a doubled-up sound effect and was based on using an appeal to authority to contradict visual evidence.
+:It doesn't matter that you didn't specifically say the wiki is updated constantly: you ''did'' use "surely they would have spotted it." Your central argument was that it is the "official" wiki and therefore has developer authority, and that is destroyed entirely if it is just an abandoned wiki that happens to be hosted on the developers' server. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (EDT)
+"It's nice to know that you think you're in a position to correct the administrators on what the rules are. You are not."
+So, I can edit any page without proof and my edit will stay up? I don't see how you being an admin makes any of your statements more valid. If someone's wrong, they're wrong.
+"Your central argument was that it is the "official" wiki and therefore has developer authority, and that is destroyed entirely if it is just an abandoned wiki that happens to be hosted on the developers' server"
+It's not abandoned, though. It just had an edit 3 days ago as a change to the team members page. I don't see how that counts as abandoned, and I don't see why the developers wiki shouldn't be treated as an official source of information. They made it, host it, upload and change things (Though, I will admit that the forums are used more than anything else, anymore) and the content's there.
+"The sound effect being doubled up has nothing to do with the visual effect of the gun firing once. It's also still too fast to be two shots and the gun only ejects one casing. This also evades that your original argument was about the 2012 version, which doesn't even have a doubled-up sound effect and was based on using an appeal to authority to contradict visual evidence."
+It has nothing to do with the visuals, right, but it does have to deal with double firing. I think there are 2 shells ejected now as well with the latest patch. Not only that, but the gun can't be fired as quickly after a double shot vs. firing twice with the single fire. They removed muzzle flashes from single player and multiplier because they were bugged to hell. I think that it's pretty confident that one can say that they're not being fired at the same time.
+Also, I'd like to be pointed out where it says in the rules that one can be banned for telling specific people the rules. I believe that my ban message stated that I was banned for "continuously telling an admin the rules."
+:I don't feel we're going anywhere with this. You obviously lack knowledge of how wikis work if you don't know how to perform a simple task like check your user logs for ban reasons (it's in the sidebar), don't understand how our rules work and are unwilling to ''try'' to understand, and have a fairly flimsy knowledge of how videogames work (what exactly do you think a longer pause after double fire is supposed to mean?). You were given an opportunity to correct your attitude and approach this as a discussion rather than an attempt to dictate your terms to us, and you didn't take it. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 17:39, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
+==Another Member's Plea==
+For the record, all I am is just another user - Who personally happens to be tired of your smart-assed condescending attitude and bullshit. I've seen people perma-banned for much less. This issue (of which no one really seems to give a damn about other than you) aside, you are most definitely not in any position to decide how things are done here. There is nothing ambiguous about that to me, nor does it appear to be up for debate either. If you don't like that, tough shit - No one's making you stay. There's only one thing that happens to those who not only believe they can disregard the established standards of the site (one of which is that nothing overrides visual evidence - if the gun visually fires both barrels - then that's pretty much that) but feel they can argue incessantly with the site's admins over it: They went away. For good. The same will happen to you too at this rate. One member to another, I strongly suggest that, if you have any interest in remaining on here, you change your manner and demeanor going forward. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 21:53, 19 May 2015 (EDT)
+"For the record, all I am is just another user - Who personally happens to be tired of your smart-assed condescending attitude and bullshit."
+I'm not the only one that's been a condescending here. I mirror what I see. And, from reading the rest of your comment, it seems you need to take you own advice.
+:: Someone else falls off a bridge, you're gonna fall off too? The precipitation doesn't matter, it doesn't make your condescension any more ok. And talk about 'mirroring' all you want but the root of this still seems to be you. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (EDT)
+"This issue (of which no one really seems to give a damn about other than you)"
+That devalues the issue, how?
+:: There are other pages here that are lacking and could better benefit from the amount of attention you're giving this one issue, which appears to be of, at best, exceedingly marginal value to the site as a whole - Right or wrong what would it change really? Are you here to prove you're right about an infinitesimal matter regardless of this site or are you here to actually help and contribute to the site? Frankly it seems more of former to me. It's a shame because you seem like you'd be a good contributor to other parts and pages here if you weren't so hung up on this one thing to the exclusion of the rest of the site. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]])
+"you are most definitely not in any position to decide how things are done here."
+Point to me where I said I was.
+:: Well, you had told Evil Tim "Actually, you do have to cite sources". Whether that is true or not, last I checked, again, you're not one to tell anyone they 'do have' to do anything here. Other than that, you're clearly showing an attitude of wanting to make yourself right regardless of the site's established standards and principles - that is clear regardless of what you actually say.  [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]])
+"There is nothing ambiguous about that to me, nor does it appear to be up for debate either."
+I agree.
+:: The attitude you've displayed throughout apparently doesn't. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]])
+"if the gun visually fires both barrels - then that's pretty much that"
+Let me understand something, then. I'm not stating this is the current case, but I am asking a genuine question:
+If an animation was bugged, but a developer didn't notice it, and as such it was never fixed until later, or the wrong animation was placed in, does that mean that it's objectively the correct animation?
+In fact, I'm willing to be mature about this if others are: I've talked with one of the devs before on multiple occasions. I'll ask him about it. I'll ask him why the animation is the way it is and what they've done or intend to do with it. Would a public message from a developer saying what's what about the animation, even if it's not in the game as of yet, be enough for everyone?
+:: Until you actually get anything concrete, it's all supposition. Which is irrelevant for our purposes, as Tim told you. On main pages, we deal with established fact, supposition and assumption stays on discussion pages until it's determined what the fact of the matter is. And the ultimate fact is we go by what is seen - Visual evidence is paramount. What's intended, what might have happened or what was supposed to happen IS IRRELEVANT. None of that matters unless its material. Movies may 'intend' for US Army soldiers to have M16A2 rifles but a film armorer might have only M16A1s with A2 handguards. We therefore state the gun is an M16A1 with A2 handguards, we don't list it as as M16A2 when it clearly isn't with a bunch of conjecture as to why it isn't.
+"but feel they can argue incessantly with the site's admins over it"
+So, admins are always right 100% of the time without fault? Good to know.
+:: No, but arguing without end over such a minor issue with an admin to the point of being banned and then going right back to it doesn't make you right either. Just obnoxious. If you get something that meets the burden of proof (and that it is on you, you're the one who brought this up), I'm sure Tim will be happy to allow the edits/changes to be made. Until then you haven't established you're right either on the issue, while your attitude and demeanor is definitely not right regardless. At least not I see it.
+"One member to another, I strongly suggest that, if you have any interest in remaining on here, you change your manner and demeanor going forward."
+You sure don't seem like you want me here. In fact, I'm confused about what you're pleading for, exactly. I haven't vandalized any pages; I'm not going to blindly edit the Black Mesa page with information that may or may not be incorrect until the issue is resolved. Call me what you want: I'm not a vandal. I've not spammed anyone's userpage; discussion on mine has been rather slow. I've only been overly-condescending, something that I feel that EvilTim was to me.
+:: I'm pleading for you - if what you're really interested in is contributing to the site - to cut the attitude, which is unacceptable regardless of your issue, regardless of you being right or wrong or indifferent. I've seen people be right and still get banned because they decided to start being foul and rude and condescending to other people, much like you are now. If you were to just cut back on sounding like a talking-down smart-ass, it's quite possible Evil Tim will reciprocate and will be appreciated by more than just him. That you aren't as bad as others who have been banned doesn't make you exempt from having poor attitude. And being an asshole back to another asshole doesn't make you exempt either. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is my point. Whatever your issue, you're not going to get anywhere continuing to present yourself as you are. That is my plea here. If you're going to get concrete evidence of your claim, perhaps it's best to just cease discussion until then, because more of it will at best get you nowhere and at worst get you banned again. I can't make my concerns and points any clearer and don't care to either. I'm just giving some advice, take it or leave it - I don't really need a reply. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (EDT)

User talk:Kingkolton9: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 21:39, 20 May 2015

Welcome to IMFDB

Black Mesa Source SPAS

Another Member's Plea

Navigation menu

Search