Historical Figures 20 Questions

About the question: 3. Is this person a man who has died?

LooseCannon said:
3 & 4. That's two questions in one.  Yes, this person was a man.  Yes, this person is dead.
Click to expand...

Bit of a late reaction, but reading it again, I still wonder.

Obviously my goal was to know as much as possible in as less questions as possible (I am pretty sure it's been done before). The formulation of the question was a risk (my own) because if the person is a woman or if the person is still alive then it'd be a no. Not a no-yes, or a yes-no. Always no.

It was one sentence with one question mark, therefore one question.
You gave two answers, but that's a choice.

A yes or a no would have been sufficient, leaving us to decide what to do with the information.

By making it 2 questions, I had the feeling you didn't like it that both of the elements in the question were a 'yes'.

I don't find it entirely honest (and absolutely unnecessary) to play like this. Of course I'll agree if this is really the rule but I had to get this off my stomach first, sorry.

My 2 cents.
 
Rotam said:
6 - Was this person born in any neo-Latin European country ?

6. No.
Click to expand...

Forostar said:
About the question: 3. Is this person a man who has died?
I don't find it entirely honest (and absolutely unnecessary) to play like this. Of course I'll agree if this is really the rule but I had to get this off my stomach first, sorry.
Click to expand...

The point of 20 Questions is that the answerer can use small wiggles to confuse the asker - the answerer can answer questions as needed so long as the answers are factual.  If I wanted to interpret it as one answer, I can, but that overall increases the difficulty of the game.  In this case, I decided to be PERFECTLY unambiguous and answer both questions rather than leave it up in the air.  If you think it's not honest....that's fine.  You can take your holier-than-thou attitude and stop playing.  I'm really,  really fucking tired of it.

A clearly noted edit: I don't mean I'm tired of your holier-than-thou attitude in this thread.  I meant in general.  I really think you're a smart guy, Foro, and generally a really good guy.  But sometimes you're really, really a dick, and your dickitude seems to come in huge clumps.  As in, you seem to be a dick in a lot of topics over a certain period of time at once.  The attitude I speak of is really the attitude that your opinion is correct, and that everything else is unfair.  Sometimes I think it's a language thing, which this might be.  It very well could be a language thing in this particular instance.  The phrase "I don't find it honest" leads to an assumption that you are saying to me, I am dishonest.

But sometimes you're just a straight-up dick.
 
Hmm, I wonder if I am a smart guy if I cause so much trouble.

Are you pissed off because I have some criticism or is it the way I expressed it? Both is possible but I tell you:
I am not afraid to utter criticism. This is not a Chinese forum.

I meant to say that I thought this rule (making it two questions without warning) is not entirely honest. Not you as a person. Apparently the words I chose angered you. I am sorry for that.
 
Yes, Foro.  It's the word choice in a lot of cases.  It makes you come off like a smug son of a bitch.  It was rather like that in the Polanski and US Politics thread, recently.  I don't know, I think your opinions are valid and I respect them.  Sometimes I feel like you don't respect our opinions.  We've been over this again and again.  The way you chose your words here felt very....accusatory.  You can say what you want, but I can call you out on it too.  It's not a Chinese forum.  I'm not banning or deleting your posts when I don't like them, I let them stand - but I will oppose things I think are bullshit, or dickish.
And I accept your apology, and I'm sorry if I snapped too.
 
I accept the apology (after a VERY accusing post I must say).

Please allow me to explain myself (and my character):

I don't like it when people discriminate, generalize or stigmatize or when people (out of nothing) start to hit at my person without any good reason (who does?). Mostly the reason is that they don't like my opinion, but they have to learn to deal with it in a respectful manner.

So when that happens, I'll be at that person's path. I react. I always try to do that with respect, seriously.
I rarely use bad language. My reaction might be in an accusing (I rather say: confronting!) way, but I won't leave something unmentioned so easily.
 
Foro, it's not what you say, it's how you say it, I find.  The problem with text is that I cannot hear your tone, I cannot see your body language, etc.  I guess I would take as an example, when you and cfh were discussing in the Polanski thread who's back was getting up...anyway.  It seems always like you will suggest others are getting aggressive or angry.  I have no problem with you saying to me..."I think you're wrong."  Or, "What's going on here?"  The problem I get is...well, here's an example.

By making it 2 questions, I had the feeling you didn't like it that both of the elements in the question were a 'yes'.

There's lot of assumptions in this sentence - that you have a feeling I made a choice because I disliked the possible answer or answers, and thus that I am punishing you for making a good guess.  This sets my teeth on edge.

Had you said, "Why did you make it 2 questions instead of 1", I would have said, "You know, I decided to break it up because I wanted these two issues to be very clear."  Or "How the answerer takes your questions in 20 Questions is his call."  or "I was wrong, let's reduce the # of questions used."  The detailed explanation you gave sounded like a lawyer stating out his case, explaining why you feel something is egregious when perhaps it was a mistake.

I guess I don't see how it's necessary to take this slant all the time.  It's as if you don't think I'll be fair if you just ask, so you have to explain why things feel fishy.  And I could understand if this was a court of law, but I thought we were all supposed to be friends here - I am used friends start off with a question before they explain why things are really fucked up in these sorts of things.
 
I see your point in this topic. I was wrong to do it this way. But I disagree with you about the Polanski topic.
I have an urge to defend myself but you know what....

Apart from my style and holy morals, these discussions also take a lot of time. I am planning to take it easy the upcoming weeks and mainly try to focus on the music topics which I find very entertaining. Further, I'll see if I can bite on my tongue when I don't like something.

Everybody happy.
 
I don't mind that we disagree, I never have.  I guess sometimes I feel belittled by the way you express those beliefs.
 
That was the seventh question.  ;)

8 - Was he alive anytime during the Queen's Victoria life ?
 
Rotam said:
That was the seventh question.  ;)

8 - Was he alive anytime during the Queen's Victoria life ?
Click to expand...

I decided to give you guys a free answer.

So that makes this #7.

7. Yes.
 
9. Was this person from the United Kingdom (in Victoria's reign called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland")?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top