User talk:Amanil

Resurrect
Amanil, I know you've been back now is time for you to rise. Get ahold of me on chat.- 22:05, 7 January 2008 (MST)

Views on the Snowfall Success
Earlier today I posted a comment on LordTunnel's Snowfall talk page, which I'd spent some time on. He promptly deleted it (which, agreed, he's allowed to do as it's on his talk page, but it just isn't polite), so I thought I'd move it to safer grounds if anyone wants to post their view. Anyway, my original post is shown below.

"Just skimmed through the history of the page, and it seems that, when you first started, the end-date was the 1st of January. It was moved to the 8th of January on the 27th of December. The last update of kills before that date was on the 29th of December, where you only had 72 kills, a full 48 from your goal of 120, or, if you want to be picky, 28 from your original goal of 100.

Anywho, on the 1st of January you then decided that the 8th was still too close, and moved the end-date to the 22nd. Agreed, on the 7th you moved the end-date back to the 19th, but that's still almost three full weeks more time than you initially planned.

Bearing in mind you started (according to the creation date of the page) on the 21st of December, and had 20 kills on the list by December 25th, so it can't have started too much before this, you had a total of 30 days to accomplish a goal that you said would take 11. In other words, it took you near to three times as long as originally planned to get the job done.

My simple question for you, and all those who wish to comment, is this: can you really call it a success? On the original end date, you had 72% of your original kill total (72 out of 100). Surely then, it was, in fact, a failure?

Moving the end-date further and further forwards just so you can say you succeeded doesn't normally count as a valid move. If a company plans to make a profit of £1m in a year, but as they near the time they realise they aren't going to make it and move the date to to almost three years, not to mention only just scraping that £1m profit on the last day (you got the last names on the 19th, your adjusted end-date), do you think they achieved their goal?

Ok, so maybe it was just a bit of fun, but claiming it as a success when it really wasn't just isn't in good spirit. Perhaps a new banner, saying "we got 72% of the way there, now all we have to do is try a bit harder next year!" is in order?"

Feel free to check the page history for the facts, they're undeniable. Anyway, discuss away! - Amanil HaVoC 13:21, 21 January 2007 (PST)
 * First, I changed the 100 necessary kills to 120 and I also had a Biology Exam which I had to study for; thus, I had no time to play scroll wars. We did reach our goal by the date claimed. Also, the date was never definate and thus changing it and claiming sucess is justified. Also, I moved the end date way before the time expired and could have easily found the 28 need noobs to kill.
 * Also, honesty, I moved the date for you Amanil I wanted to make sure you got some of the Snowfall fun. Thankfully, Xolah was able to give it to you. Which reminds me, Amanil how are you doing. Long time no kill. -- LordTunnel  of the UPkers  13:50, 21 January 2007 (PST)
 * Agreed, you changed the number of kills, but you still didn't reach 100 by the 1st of January, nevermind 120. Second, I'm fairly sure they don't spring Biology exams on you just like that, so if you'd have thought even a week ahead you'd have seen you were busy, so no excuse there. I hardly count 3 days as plenty of time to find 28 unique kills, and we're not talking whether you could have done it or not, we're talking about if you did do it or not, which you didn't.
 * Oh, and a side point. Woohoo, Xolah killed me, but he did it after the 1st of January. Trying to patronise me by saying you did it for me is not only a lie, but also irrelevant. If you want to carry on weakening your argument, be my guest. I'm doing fine, thanks, and, amazingly, despite spending over 3 weeks not on Scroll Wars neither you nor any other petty PKers out there had found me. Clearly you're just not trying as hard as you used to ;) - Amanil HaVoC 14:00, 21 January 2007 (PST)
 * I don't have a weak argument. You don't have any argument: you claim we didn't have sucessful slaughter because we didn't reach our goal in time, but we did. We moved the goal, so what's the big deal. The goal wasn't definite, so we moved it and then we succeeded. That's really the end of the story, there's nothing to debate. All the participants didn't rush to get the kills because they say the deadline had been moved.
 * -- LordTunnel  of the UPkers  14:46, 21 January 2007 (PST)
 * Agreed, you reached your final goal in time, but again, moving a goal so that you suceed means that you failed to reach the original one. Interestingly, you said: "All the participants didn't rush to get the kills because they say the deadline had been moved". So you've just admitted that changing the deadline means that they didn't have to rush, unlike if you hadn't done, where reaching the goal would have been difficult? But anyway, give someone else a chance to reply first before you make another pointless edit. Oh, and the llama thing? Yeah, that's gone. It didn't fit the template standardisation that I mentionned a little while ago that you got picky about. Make it conform to some standards, and you can have it back ;) - Amanil HaVoC 23:18, 21 January 2007 (PST)
 * Meh it's outside the box thinking W.o.O. 05:05, 22 January 2007 (PST)damn sig still ain't right
 * Let's not make this such a big deal, it's not like anyone is really that active on this wiki to discuss the success of the SS! Why do you wish to make everyone ignorant of the fact that you want to feed the DramaLlama by trying to arouse wiki rage? -- LordTunnel  of the UPkers  11:22, 22 January 2007 (PST)
 * Perhaps no one's active on the wiki because we rapidly kill off topics, such as this one? Leave it a while, some people still pop in and they'll have their view. Next point, your second sentence didn't really make sense. You're asking why I want to stop everyone knowing why I want this to be such a big deal? That's the exact point I've been trying to make, not to spread ignorance of it. As for wiki rage, as of yet I haven't insulted you, I've merely opened up a topic for discussion that I believe to be of interest to other people. If you don't want to talk about it, don't discourage everyone else from doing so. Oh, and the llama seems to have had another accident. The fact that you've put it up again despite me asking you not to isn't exactly polite now, is it? While I'm against creating a template for every little debate, some people like it, so I don't mind you having it. As it's on my page, though, if you're going to have it up have it meet the standard indent and size (admittedly, I haven't checked the size of it, so it could be 500px, but I can easily see that the indent's not 0px). For future reference, putting it up again without making said alteration is almost vandalism, so I may decide to have a word with a moderator or two about it. If you want to go into a debate about how you should be able to put up what you like on my talk page, just have a glance at your one and you'll see that I wasn't even allowed to start a discussion, nevermind have one. - Amanil HaVoC 11:42, 22 January 2007 (PST)
 * I guess, I have nothing more to say. I am just happy that you care about the SS and put so much time into your analysis of our success. I am sure I speak for all Pker when I say, thank you Amanil, thank you for caring. -- LordTunnel  of the UPkers  12:27, 22 January 2007 (PST)