As I pointed out to you, which will stand repeating since you didn't get it the first time, the definition in that dictionary, which BTW, is not one with any obvious pedigree, does not agree with how you are using it. I know English isn't your first language, but "made inferior", in this case means changed to become inferior, not created inferior from the start. You usage is far from "perfect". It's not completely incorrect, just mostly.
Something is rotten in Denmark again, as becomes apparent when someone dares to correct you.
haha. Really? So you are just posting here hoping you convince no one? Can you be any more disingenuous? And then more thinly veiled insults? Not only is something rotten in Denmark, it's evil as well.
Do you prefer that I link from Merriam-Webster and post an identical Adjective?
transitive verb
1
a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; also : bribe
b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values
2
: rot, spoil
3
: to subject (a person) to corruption of blood
4
: to alter from the original or correct form or version <the file was corrupted>
intransitive verb
1
a : to become tainted or rotten
b : to become morally debased
2
: to cause disintegration or ruin
Sure, Thrasher. You might almost convince yourself that I'm "wrong" because I'm using corrupt in a way that you don't personally agree with.
To me, the theory seemed sound until it was put into practice. The application of the theory was the corrupting factor - from my point of view. It was a good concept tainted by the flaws made apparent through its usage. It's hard to get any clearer than that.
Also, I said "utterly useless" AS A DEFINITION - not altogether. I found it interesting enough to talk about, so it's of some use - definitely.
Even in your fantasy universe where I'm wrong because I use words you wouldn't personally use - how important is that one word, really?
Yes, I'm evil because you don't believe me. Obviously
You can't. Merriam-Websert doesn't even have eh same usage you posted. Another false claim. WHy am I not suprised. You just keep digging you grave deeper and deeper with more lies. Standard practice.
Merriam-Webster
Haha. You got this selfish egocentric way of looking at facts thinking that everything is personal and revolving about the individual. No. A definition of a word doesn't not depend on your ego, like you seem think everything in the world does.
What imagined theory are you referring to? We have a definition proposed pure and simple. The subject was the definition not some theory made up in Dart's head.
Because your communication is poor and needs clarification. Is that clear enough for you? If you REALLY care enough to be understood, then you would also try to understand. But we really know this is not about being understood or understanding, it's about seeking attention, and your own egotistical validation. Convincing others of your fake superiority. Nothing more…
More lies, I see. No you are evil because you insult people anyone who actually disagree with you and don't validate you.
You're posting the transitive verb.
You have to scroll down for the adjective. Try again
a : morally degenerate and perverted : depraved
b : characterized by improper conduct (as bribery or the selling of favors) <corrupt judges>
2
: putrid, tainted
3
: adulterated or debased by change from an original or correct condition <a corrupt version of the text>
— cor·rupt·ly adverb
— cor·rupt·ness noun
See corrupt defined for English-language learners »
Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? It sure sounds like you're talking about your own definition of what a definition is
The theory was the proposition. You're not following too well
You mean you feel inferior for some reason that compels you to try and "best me" - and you fail again and again?
People aren't evil because you're not smarter than they are. It's not a crime, either.
It's not there either. Continue to lie and misinform. See below corrupted one..
Wow I know you like to make everything egocentric, but quoting a dictionary is far from it. These are kindergarten argument tactics Dart. Very poor form.
Wow! You can't change the subject of any argument to another imagined object after the fact. We were discussing the definition. You originally said the definition was corrupt. That still and continues to be gibberish.
I'm sure you think the world all revolves around you, and you are always right. And that everyone should feel inferior to you, but no, you are wrong again and are a liar and an ass, and need to be called out on it.
haha, getting another false sense of superiority and liking underhanded assholery? We are not surprised.
Tainted is there and debased literally means inferior (of lower quality)
It would seem even kindergarten tactics is a challenge for you
Yes, it's corrupt - because it's been corrupted after being put to use. I explained this already. The theory (or proposition, if you prefer) was a good one (as in, it made good sense) - but after testing it, we came to see how X-Com wasn't really an RPG to us and how it was not reversable - meaning it would fail to identify a lot of games.
but that you'll know I'm right inside yourself. That's enough for me.
That would be the royal "we", right?
Nope. Not in this context. Debased and tainted in the context of corrupted means modified to be made worse. The definition of an RPG is what is it is. Is has not been modified to made worse. Try again.
Everything is a challenge unless you are the great egocentric Dart. No, your transparency is far from a challenge. But I'm sure you'd like to think otherwise.
That's poor logic. A definition doesn't not change or become corrupted when tested. It becomes invalidated, but even in this case it was not. You still haven't made clear what the NPCs interactions are that make the new XCOM pass the criteria. They need to be meaningful and not just menu facades.
haha, yeah, right, you don't care about convincing anyone, and then say this. OK, that's disingenuous psychotalk.
Uh no, we as in the other members of this board. I don't refer to myself that way, it's very egocentric, but I figured you'd resonate with it. Thanks for proving my point.
It's a completely different thing when I'm talking - as that's highly enjoyable. I don't argue - I educate
Chuck Norris has nothing on DArt!
Yes, it's been made worse. That's why it's debased. It's not a definition until it works as a definition. It was a good proposition but it failed after being tested. We've been through this a few times.
but we're talking about my usage of words.
It also has actual rescue missions where you need to talk to NPCs and guide them to safety.
So, speaking for the other members of this board without asking them isn't egocentric?
Ok, gotcha
I agree.Contrary to the disbelievers we are nearing closer to a RPG definition, like it or hate it, the definition can be used for future reference and clarification as required by any gamer - most importantly it can be used to show if a game is a RPG or not.