ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

[Yue]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

I haven't seen that, but like I said-- Uzbekistan. Seems to fit with dry and flat.

Just general collections of mentions from F1 and F2. Nothing in specific. And I don't recall Reaver saying anything about it being tropical-- in point of fact, I don't think it is. I do recall Reaver describing it in a way vaguely reminiscent of certain stereotypes of the Middle East/Asia, and Garth getting irritated over his waxing melodramatic over the dusky-skinned beauties or whatever stupid ****.

A) That sounds mildly racist. B) I'm basing it on the fact that all the Samarkanders we've seen have been black and the fact that the real-world city of Samarkand is a currently-Uzbek city that was a major Silk Road trading center, and the descriptions in-game referring to katanas and such coming from Samarkand. Not much solid, no, but conjecture is fun.

I got the impression it was more South African, from Garth's apperance, and abriginals being what Reaver was refering to.

 

[Necromancer]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

This thread is weeks old. Don't post here. And don't double post.

 

[SimonKalevra]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

Don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to post here?
Still an un-answered topic, we probably won't know if there'll be ninjas in F3 till it ships in (hopefully) October.

 

[Cain]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

Hes not allowed to post coz its against the forum rules to bump threads and if we allowed people to bump then we would have loads of threads from ages ago in the first page.

 

[Arseface]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

Bumping an old thread is ok if it stops a new pointless one being made. This thread is unresolved, and he's trying to add new information.

What he's not actually allowed to do is double post.

 

[Necromancer]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

Bumping an old thread is ok if it stops a new pointless one being made.

Neither of those options are preferable. If you have a comment on an old conversation that would be pointless as a new thread, don't post. If you have a question on an old topic, starting a new thread would be preferable.

Posting in old threads is against the rules.

 

[Arseface]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

And yet you and I seem to have to qualms about doing it in this thread.

The staff here are noticably lax when it comes to enforcing a lot of the rules, and I think that is a good thing. They've already established that posting in an old thread is equivalent to posting a new thread. Short version: It really doesn't matter unless it's spam.

 

[Necromancer]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

But it's very irritating. A comment made on an old thread probably won't get a lot of responses because it causes people to have to read the whole thing. The conversation is also most likely over, and people won't want to discuss it. Not commenting would be a lot easier for everybody.

Posting a question in a new thread is easier too. I personally don't mind helping people out who have the same questions, and having a new thread is just much cleaner and easier.

 

[Arseface]

Re: ninjas or no ninjas w/ expanation

It doesn't matter which is easier. We don't want to get a reputation for being cold to newcomers, because we're not. If the first thing they may hear on the forums may be, "Don't post here," or perhaps something more hostile, then that is something we have to work against.

Besides, no one's asking you to read their post, let alone respond.