Nostalrius Begins - Quality wow vanilla realm (1.12)

Saying 'that isn't blizzlike'.

That NEVER happened in Vanilla. Not even once.

If you complain about ANYTHING not being blizzlike, you are complaining about yourself.

The more you know.

0/10 troll

You still offering gold to anyone who can explain what is wrong with you... I mean why they don't like you... without insulting you?

it is not blizzlike to say that saying it is not blizzlike is not blizzlike, so op is not blizzlike too


even our own existences are not blizzlike unless we go in a delorean back to the futurepast

I knew it was a meta post. That was kind of the joke.

I'm sorry Autistic, I didn't mean to deflect anything... it took me a minute to figure out what I 'deflected', but I guess you wanted me to address the concept that the suffix '-like' means it has some, but not all, characteristics.

This would be a valid observation if blizz-like had not been turned into a term to mean something specific. Prior to private servers, that could mean that a company is blizz-like because they are in a similar location and run their business in a similar way and produce similar games. However, we all know, that is not the case.

The term blizzlike is now used to describe a specific type of World of Warcraft private server. It usually means that the server's aim is to mimic the experience a player would have had if they had played on the retail servers during a specific time period. It is NOT used to describe a server that has 'some' like characteristics of an actual blizzard server, or all private Warcraft servers would be considered blizzlike.

You know this, yet you still decided use the dictionary definition of the suffix like. I'm not entirely sure what your point or goal was above... so there was nothing to deflect. The dishonest and troll-like action of using a definition when you know the term has developed an alternative definition is a fine example of why someone would not like you as a person. This seems to be a common theme for you; not using definitions, but generally acting in a way that, seemingly with the intent to, irritate others. According to recent studies, this 'troll like' behavior has a suggested connection with...

"Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)."

Source

Based on the limited observations of this forum, this seems to align with your actions quite well; especially the machiavellianism, narcissism and sadism. This isn't an insult, mind you, it is a simple observation.

Thus my question was an honest one and not a deflection.
(That said... I did ask you a direct question... that was then deflected.)

nitsujcm2 wrote:The term blizzlike is now used to describe a specific type of World of Warcraft private server. It usually means that the server's aim is to mimic the experience a player would have had if they had played on the retail servers during a specific time period. It is NOT used to describe a server that has 'some' like characteristics of an actual blizzard server, or all private Warcraft servers would be considered blizzlike.

Due to the limited knowledge we have of the retail vanilla experience because not everything was documented and the population struggling for the experience en masse disallows the server to be a carbon copy of Blizzard's pre-2.0 days. Just because other people use the term does not mean it's correct and if you show the people using the suffix in the wrong way to validate their point(s), you should ensure them on the suffix meaning like I have with you. Bring my point along with creating an exact replica is not possible unless you have full documentation and/or source code+database from Blizzard -- which is also not possible.

nitsujcm2 wrote:You know this, yet you still decided use the dictionary definition of the suffix like. I'm not entirely sure what your point or goal was above... so there was nothing to deflect. The dishonest and troll-like action of using a definition when you know the term has developed an alternative definition is a fine example of why someone would not like you as a person. This seems to be a common theme for you; not using definitions, but generally acting in a way that, seemingly with the intent to, irritate others. According to recent studies, this 'troll like' behavior has a suggested connection with...

"Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others)."

Source

As stated above, I advise you to use the term correctly with the same reasoning I gave you when you see the term "blizzlike" brought up in it's wrongful use. It's up to you if you want to cease this argument.

Saying I'm trolling is pretty funny when a staff member has thrown this in the off-topic discussion when you originally put it in the general discussion. You made this post in order to get some kind of reply or to irritate others, yet I'm the one trolling you. Linking to the study just confirms most of the intentions of any anonymous person has on the internet because there's no repercussions to your real world identity if you don't have a connection with your online presence. I can easily mirror some of the characteristics on you if you wish to throw the study at me though.

nitsujcm2 wrote:Based on the limited observations of this forum, this seems to align with your actions quite well; especially the machiavellianism, narcissism and sadism. This isn't an insult, mind you, it is a simple observation.

Thus my question was an honest one and not a deflection.
(That said... I did ask you a direct question... that was then deflected.)

Your question may be an honest one, but you understand how strongly people feel about the discussion. You have obviously taken the time to read the forums enough to understand the reason behind a moderator moving your thread to the off-topic section because it is not related to the server (meta) and it does not promote constructive, positive, and on-topic discussion. It's fuel to the fire.

The wording of your question is more of an insult than a question. Pointing out deflections past the first one would basically create deflections ad infinitum.

To answer your question though: I am not offering gold to anyone for any reason other than self benefit or through exchanges in-game.

wtf post is this jeez

It's just an intellectual pissing match; trying to see who has the bigger dictionary.

Fair enough points, except I disagree with your statements about blizzlike. No one ever said carbon copy, else they would say - 'exact replica of'. My point was, and is, that a term is needed to differentiate between a server like Nost and a '255 fun server' or even Fenix. I doubt many have any confusion over the difference between the normal use of the '-like' suffix and how it is used for wow private servers. Nost adopted the term in describing their own server, knowing that it meant more than the base definition. I showed this above by pointing out that any wow private server fits into the dictionary definition and thus, Nost would be simply saying we are a wow private server that shares some, but not all, qualities of a normal wow server. Redundant at best. That was not the message they intended by using the term blizzlike and we all know it. They wanted you to know it was a 1x server, no pay2win, no vote2win, no added 'fun' content, no hacking, no cheating, and a handful of other things.

I can see how my post could be trolling, but honestly, it was more of a joke about the meta-quality of the complains. Humor, not irritation. (I never claimed I had a good scene of humor, mind you. lol)
And yes, both of my prior posts were laced with jabs at you specifically. I know you justify your methods by showing how helpful you can be; but honestly I just find many of your posts toxic and berating without cause. So I baited you and you bit. Feel free to have the last word, I won't continue the thread after this unless you do a very good job of baiting yourself. (Not a challenge, just saying it isn't 100% impossible that I will respond again, just not likely.)