/cyoag/ CYOA General

Not really

That's just what someone who was mad would say.

You've made me sad, is that good enough?

No if I was mad I'd insult you passive-aggressively

It was mentioned before, but Biotic Organ is ridiculously OP, to the point that any conceivable character not otherwise relying on class synergy would likely be made better by taking Hybrid and Gene-Fighter, just for this ability. Any gene-fighter would be literally retarded to not pick up at least level one of this, since the point you spend on it is instantly refunded if nothing else. It needs to only affect allies, period. I suggest making level 1 the injection, level 2 the vapor, and level 3 the rank 4 possibility.
Or maybe something else, I dunno, but this is ridiculous.

A few times over this CYOA, energy costs are brought up. It might be wise to clarify what that is referring to.

...

And only someone insecure would stop saying it just because they were afraid of you calling them mad.

Does anyone else ever feel ambivalent abou posting a CYOA after creating it, because the people here are such fags and seeing them make builds and arguments off of something you made makes the thread even more cringeworthy than usual?

Any OC is good OC right?

No.

strawpoll.me/12416757

...

I miss the pictures.

They are in the d version

No. I don't mind builds, and rarely have a problem with arguments. People are mostly trash, but sometimes it's nice trash. In any case, I made it to post it, so I do. Though I only post it once.

Under Cadyra, Overweights last section,it says üntil all non-humans are dead" when it should be non-demons or humans.

You can thank stalker-chan for the lack of pictures. Here is the /d/ Version.

Wait, so I can literally click the link and open them in-line right here? So why the big deal?

Used to use an old version of Photoshop. Not possible anymore. Don't feel like paying for a new version of Photoshop. Tried Gimp. Didn't like it at all.

Any good alternatives out there?

>paying

I'm not a pirate.

Actually on that note I thought I heard CS2 was free but after looking the only site with a legitimate download noted that only downloading it was free. You had to pay for a key. Which I don't really get the point of. Seems like they accidentally made it free for awhile, or something, without intending to.

Not my problem you have issues.

Just skip to that next time, instead of the useless greentext.

Didn't suggest it was.

Fuck you. I was morally obligated to post that green text.

See

Pretty sure a pirate doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals.

You must not have looked very hard.
helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/cs2-product-downloads.html?promoid=19SCDRQK

Pretty sure someone who got his morals from a "wouldn't download a car" commercial has far less.

As far as I can tell, that's just the product download, not the key needed to activate it.
I'm not the guy you're talking to. I just don't pirate things. I don't give a shit if anyone else does or judge them for it.

Good goyim. Giving us your cash at every turn is the very essence of morality.

>As far as I can tell, that's just the product download, not the key needed to activate it.
And as far as I can tell, you're retarded.

Less bickering over piracy, more adventure

Nah, just when I want to buy something lol. It's a sentiment that's existed long before those shitty commercials.

I mean, I understand pirating something that isn't freely given, but something that is... why? That's just dumb, man.

Yeah, I never opened the link. Thanks for doing the work.

Yeah was just going to post this myself, albeit a tad nicer. Photoshop cs2 is over 7 years old and adobe no longer supports it and thus a free code for anyone who wants to use an older version.

If it's freely given then getting it off a torrent isn't piracy.

The problem isn't legal, it's moral.

It's not piracy in any way whatsoever.

What's the absolute best CYOA there is? The best of the bestest best.

I want to know.

well the one I had the most fun with was conduit

Right. Thanks for repeating yourself for no reason, I guess?

You said it was morally piracy even though it wasn't legally. At least that's what I got from it.

If you surreptitiously take something from a shop thinking to steal it but it turns out they were giving them away for free, that negates the harm of the theft, but not the decision to steal it. Moral, not legal problem. Or social, if talking about morality triggers you.

Except that was never the case. We already started from the notion that they were giving it away for free.

Piracy was brought up before talking about it being given away free.

Yes, but I still never got the idea that we were talking about what you described now.

Now you do, I hope.

Yeah. Thanks for the set of irrelevant and confusing posts I guess.

Explaining it so that you understood it was confusing?

Have some real thievery.

What you're saying is stupidly contrived. The original post in this vein that I responded to was calling "pirating" something that's free stupid... which implies that the person knows it's free, otherwise you can't call that combination of circumstances stupid.

Calling something stupid, and then saying it must be so or else you wouldn't have called it stupid... the most circular of logics.

Calling some specific subtopic stupid in a conversation about the main topic means you must think it's more stupid than in general.

So, yeah, it's necessary, otherwise the stupidity never enters the equation.

You haven't addressed the issue of the circularity of your logic, just distracted from it.

Speaking of are there any pirate cyoas?

You're (or whoever) the one who called it stupid, so the circle is only halfway on my side.

Relying on circular logic isn't suddenly ok because someone else said it. You used it in your chain of reasoning, but it doesn't work.

I'm not relying on circular logic, I'm explaining it.

Since you want me to explain it again I suppose, here you go:

If you know something is free, then you can't pirate it, because it's free.

If you don't know something is free, then pirating it isn't stupid, because you didn't know it was free.

Simple enough for you now?

Apparently I have to repeat myself. The problem isn't the legal state of piracy, it's the moral state of being ok with stealing stuff.

Additionally, the proposition that because someone called it stupid they must have meant that the person knew that the software was being given away for free elsewhere is weak, because otherwise they would have been mistaken and wrong.

The fact is, pointing out the mistakes of others usually ends up in them being mistaken and wrong, so using that as a reason to say "that's obviously not what they meant" doesn't hold true.

>The problem isn't the legal state of piracy, it's the moral state of being ok with stealing stuff.
That's what you keep trying to shoehorn this conversation into, I know, but it was never what I was focusing on.

There's two way you can "pirate" something that's free: either you're ignorant or you're stupid.

Also,
>piracy is stealing xD
user pls.

You were responding to something I said. You don't get to define something completely different from what I meant and pretend it was related.

If you're not interested in the normal social contacts of discussion, then we're done here.

I was making a response to one part of what you said, not another. Just because you think one is more important is irrelevant to me.

Aside from that, I've already directly told you so several times by now, so don't get all high and mighty about the fundamentals of communication with me.

>I was making a response to one part of what you said, not another.
That's called taking a statement out of context.

Man not even 100 replies in and we got another derail in the making.

Not when I make it clear that's what I'm doing.

If you make it clear that you're taking the statement out of context, you're still taking the statement out of context. When you change the meaning of what is said, and then take issue with that fabricated meaning, you're not being intellectually honest.

Also, eventually admitting that you're taking a statement out of context and don't care about what the other person was talking about, is hardly making anything clear in a timely fashion.

No, if you make it clear you're not talking about the exact thing the guy you're responding to was talking about, you're talking about something else. You aren't taking the statement out of context because you aren't taking the statement anywhere at all.

>80 responses
>39 never made cyoa
im guessing theres more but they didnt vote

There was 19 people in this thread, user. The others are from last thread.

You didn't though. After a convulsed process akin to pulling teeth, you finally backpedaled and admitted you weren't really responding to the original scenario at all (lol), just saying an unrelated thing. In which case I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with someone responding to your own posts with unrelated true things.

No, after several posts of misunderstanding, we came to the conclusion that there was a misunderstanding. It was clear what you were talking about, and what I was talking about.

Then you proceeded to ignore this and act passive-aggressive instead.

Just openly trying to get you to acknowledge your mistake by explain to you how you messed up. Nothing passive-aggressive about it.

I guess you could call it straight-up aggressive, if polite conversation stresses you out.

You need to be more openly aggressive if you want to look openly aggressive without any room for confusion.

At least you just admitted that scoring points is more important to you than
>normal social contacts of discussion
I think it was, the way you put it?

I don't want to look aggressive at all; I simply said you could call it that.

I don't consider it aggressive to ask you to be honest with me; nor do I consider it to break any social contracts of discussion.

Not that I know of. Might do it after the ninja one I'm working on now.

But I consider it dishonest to keep pushing against a point that was already cleared 30 posts ago.

It's pointless in a context of productive conversation. You can decide for yourself why you're doing it though.

Out of curiosity, how is seeking mutual understanding "scoring points"? Most normal people find that to be the basis of discussion.
I'm not sure why you're running in denial from what happened 30 posts ago and is still happening. Asking you to stop that isn't dishonest, it's just a decent request for you to clear the air.

>Out of curiosity, how is seeking mutual understanding "scoring points"?
You aren't seeking mutual understanding, since we already achieved that a long time ago. Meanwhile, drumming up several times how wrong I was and how right you are, how what you're saying is the truth, etcetera, over several posts, definitely shows you're doing this for the sake of your ego. Acting that way is utterly unproductive if you were actually trying to be honest. Hence, you're scoring points.

>I'm not sure why you're running in denial from what happened 30 posts ago and is still happening.
I'm not running from it, I acknowledged it then. You're the one who has a bone to pick over it.

You two who are arguing SHUT THE FUCK UP. Goddam I wish I could punch both of you through yoru monitors. Fucking idiots.

I'll fite you user

Fuck off you piece of shit. Goddamn I hope something messy happens to you.

...

I haven't. I think you haven't expressed an iota of responsibility for your actions in this matter, which leaves it entirely up in the air as to whether anything is actually clear to you. I understand that it's just a defense mechanism you've developed, probably for good reason, but I'm not asking anything extraordinary of you.

I'm not sure why you find it so difficult to express; it's so easy, and yet you won't either own up to it or drop it (since you are the one who wishes it to end). That's why it comes off as stubbornness.

...

>responsibility
Don't be melodramatic, user. I owe you no apology for misunderstanding your post, you have yourself to blame at least half way. Which you'd know if those old "normal social contacts of discussion" were something you're actually familiar with.

But tallying blame just reinforces my point about you trying to score points from before.

Oh, you don't "owe" me anything. But if I say "apples" and you understand "oranges", that's not my fault. And pretending it's half my fault is being an asshole.

Now, you may think you have a certain right to be an asshole - and I might even agree with you. But you're still an asshole hiding behind the idea of misunderstanding, and I like to give people a chance to own what they are.

It's like slamming into someone in a parking lot and saying "well, according to the insurance company liability is 50/50 in a parking lot - after all, you're half to blame for being here to get hit!"

...

...