Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The well: atakdog The well: atakdog

11-17-2009 , 11:09 AM
the road is nice
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:10 AM
sick read by JD
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:10 AM
hmmmmm... road....
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:12 AM
that's a freaky word man
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
I enjoyed this book but I can't imagine it's going to make an atheist suddenly doubt their philosophical views.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:17 AM
I'm sad that I haven't had time to properly read more than like 2 pages of this thread but it's pretty amazing. And it's pretty exciting about the trip to Scotland.

Send Mojo to Atak imo
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I enjoyed this book but I can't imagine it's going to make an atheist suddenly doubt their philosophical views.
yes, I said start by reading that book

my school has a whole curriculum you know.....
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:27 AM
Oh sweet. What's next? I am ready for the Dustin school of particle physics as well.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeLady
A POGer offered to pay for the whole (not insubstantial) plane ticket
One way or round trip?

I have not had a chance to comment, but I think this is the best well that we have had.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FCBLComish
One way or round trip?

I have not had a chance to comment, but I think this is the best well that we have had.
round trip, unfortunately

and I agree, though I might be biased slightly
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Oh sweet. What's next? I am ready for the Dustin school of particle physics as well.
will have to think about this

it might be The Holographic Universe, but I'm not sure

Something that tries to further bridge the mind/matter gap though
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 11:40 AM
I think I read a bit of that. I take it your trying to work towards a sort of scientific acceptance of subjective experience, or inter-subjective experience? I'm kind of on that train, in a sense.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXsooted
Not at all implying you do this often, but do you feel bad at all when you tell someone they made a terrible kill in wolfchat? Do you worry they won't like you? And I assume your brutal honesty that I've seen in wolfchat is also there in the real world?

Again not saying you go out of your way to be mean but you definitely tell it how it is, which is something I both respect and wonder about because I'm not sure that I'm capable of doing that myself
I would *sooo* like to be on a wolf team with atak someday. It still bugs me that I was a neutral with atak and bigger in LOTR but I didn't get to chat with them because I was "lost" and by the time I joined the team they were dead.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
[LIST][*]A solid technical understanding of the numerical aspects of the games — it amazes me how many people don't get that. I mean, probably a solid majority of players don't even know who many villager peeks, or wolf peeks, or a combination (note: trick question) are necessary for a seer lock, nor could they even figure it out.
I was definitely guilty of this. I never even thought about it until my last game--a vanilla 21er where you were one of the seers and I was a wolf. What amazed me in that game was that even though, by day 4, neither seer had peeked any wolf, it village could lock it up, not by peeking a wolf, but by peeking a villager. And that the correct wolf play wasn't to NK the seers, but to NK a villager. So the game ended with none of the wolves being peeked, but conceding anyway because a sufficient number of villagers had been peeked to make the game a lock.

I just never knew such a scenario was possible.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeLady
A POGer offered to pay for the whole (not insubstantial) plane ticket
this pogga is teh awesome imo
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
What all that means (assuming it's true) is complex. I suppose it could be argued that that implies that chess is a deeper game intellectually, and that may be so — bridge requires a much broader skill set, so it attracts people who are good at many things.
I would have thought the fact that bridge involves playing with a partner whereas chess is played individually explains the majority of it. Funny, because going from what little i know of you (and this well) i would associate you much more with the chess playing people i have met than the bridge playing people.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
this pogga is teh awesome imo
Um, yeah, that's pretty clear.

And if you read this whole well you'll realize just how big a deal it was for me.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusmahler
I was definitely guilty of this. I never even thought about it until my last game--a vanilla 21er where you were one of the seers and I was a wolf. What amazed me in that game was that even though, by day 4, neither seer had peeked any wolf, it village could lock it up, not by peeking a wolf, but by peeking a villager. And that the correct wolf play wasn't to NK the seers, but to NK a villager. So the game ended with none of the wolves being peeked, but conceding anyway because a sufficient number of villagers had been peeked to make the game a lock.

I just never knew such a scenario was possible.
My first game!

Tbh, I always try to figure out all the numbers: how manhy villagers do we need to mislynch, who are those villagers going to be etc etc. I could still improve on alot of the technicalities though.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atakdog
And if you read this whole well you'll realize just how big a deal it was for me.
I both resent the implication that I have not read all of your well and admit to it.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
I both resent the implication that I have not read all of your well and admit to it.
I've read a lot of it, but there's this "atakdog" guy who keeps writing essays. F that.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:12 PM
Based on the answers itt, you seem to have a phenomenally high level of self confidence in your analytical abilities/perception, and yet a similarly high level of introspection. Do you have any self doubt? Is that a good thing or a bad thing in WW? In the real world?
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
this pogga is teh awesome imo
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadaz
What would you say is the most annoyed you´ve been in a game of ww and why? Does you annoyance normally stem out of the "incompetence" of other players, or the fact that you may have overlooked something?
I get somewhat annoyed at people being bad at the game, but mostly I can move beyond that. It is unacceptable to be mad at someone for not being better at something than he is.

The most annoyed I've been by far was at OrangeRake, starting in the Playboy game I linked earlier. NOt because she got it wrong, but because I thiought had she tried she would have gotten it right. I blew up at her the next time we played, because for the first few days of the game she was joking around in the thread but was quite open about the fact that she wasn't going to bother trying until it got to end game, and would not ever read the whole thread. I viewed this as unacceptable, in a a team game.

To be very, very clear: my blowup was not acceptable. Feeling anger was human; letting it out was antisocial. I should have been banned (temporarily imo) for it.

Last edited by atakdog; 11-17-2009 at 02:46 PM.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amplify
I both resent the implication that I have not read all of your well and admit to it.
I wasn't talking about you at all. It was clear that you had (I thought); I was using your comment as a springboard to emphasize the importance of what has happened to me in the last 48 hours, and in particular of one person's generosity.

Sorry it wasn't clear.
The well: atakdog Quote
11-17-2009 , 02:44 PM
Apologies again — I have go take my tax final (early, because of the trip).

Worry not: I will answer all questions.
The well: atakdog Quote

      
m