[Kaimetsu]

At numerous points in this thread you've pointed out what you personally believe to be "idiotic error of logic", so doesn't really count.

And now I'll point out another one. My labelling of you was a subjective appraisal. My labelling of your errors are - debatably - subjective appraisals. Why do you believe that I am not allowed to use the latter in creating the former?

In my personal opinion I find you to be a ***** because you spell humor with "mour", instead of just "mor", though both are correct, I have a personal preference. That wouldn't justify me calling you a *****.

But it would justify me calling you a *****. Judging somebody's intelligence based on which valid spelling they use is extremely stupid, if only because it's an immensely inaccurate measure. A person's choice of spelling does not reflect on their intelligence in any real way. On the other hand, the frequency with which they say idiotic things has a very real link to their intelligence, and so it is reasonable for me to judge your intellect based on your numerous logical failures.

You agree to the majority part of my statement...

Wha? When did I agree to anything you said?

just got through reading all of GraalOnline docs, so let me get a little quote.

Your quote is inapplicable. Reasons:

1) You have not proven that the majority of people like the NPC in question.
2) Utilitarianism applies. The majority is given a larger weighting than the minority, but you have to examine the specific nature of players' reactions. Any person with a mental age higher than thirteen will most likely consider your toy to be in extremely bad taste. Meanwhile, those with low intellects might think it is kinda cool but it won't revolutionise their lives. The following is, in this case, true: Small number of people * large negative reaction > Large number of people * small positive reaction.
3) It's not just about what the players want - it's about Graal's reputation. As I have already explained, your NPC harmed that (or at least took it in a direction unwanted by the owners).

I have no problem with expressing a dislike for items...but when you go to the extent that you're posting on these forums and with the soul intent of trying to bring the "bad" out of another server

Yeah, because posting takes so much effort, right? Just think what else they could be doing in that time! They could read half a page of a book, for example! Or see three minutes of their favourite TV programme! How foolish of them to squander so much of their precious time!

Wtf? Raping players? It's a friggin game!!!

A game where you purposefully gave the players the ability to simulate raping objects. What is so difficult to understand? You say that you consider it harrassment and cause for GPs to intervene, yet the major purpose of your NPCs is to facilitate this idiocy.

Great, they can PM a staff member! That makes it okay! It doesn't matter that there are not always staff online, and that it's impossible to prove that the person actually did it, and that the event has already taken place by the time the GP even hears about it!

Social standards classify it as being distasteful? Social standards also classify killing people as "distasteful"

Not in a computer game. Or even those who do are not people who play Graal. Boom, your argument fails.

So you've asked Stefan and Unixmad and Nemesis and whoever else specifically about NPC's for "humping" objects?

No, I have talked to them about the general standard of taste that Graal should take. They want it to be a game suitable for families, and that pretty much precludes *****ic toys like yours.

And yes, I find it amusing also. But then I didn't care, I just brought it up because you were doing the same to me.

Ah, then you intentionally engaged in idiotic hypocrisy. That's an excellent defense!

Didn't make ya look any better. In fact, you just basically criticised yourself.

Only in the eyes of those who have difficulty reading. I pointed out your hypocrisy, that's all. I could have criticised you for judging without proper evidence, but I didn't. Even if I had, I would only be criticising myself if I agreed that I am doing the same. In fact I am not. I am judging you on the evidence inherent in the posts you have made so far. It's fairly reasonable to conclude that somebody who acts as stupid as you is, in fact, stupid.