[ClassyJacket]

They asked very politely for you to clarify some details after they tried themselves but were unable to verify it by looking it up. Your hostility is unwarranted and rude. People are not psychic, it was quite reasonable for them to ask.

[conjectures]

Actually I sympathise with this response. Getting tired myself of people larping as fact checkers and professional skeptics.

Not enough detail in someone's response? Here are some ideas:

1. Ask moar polite. Not, "I don't think the story adds up."

2. Assume the story is yet true and go to prove it to your satisfaction. Post the links and thank op for the interesting nerd snipe.

3. Enter the proposition into your mental database with some lower level of confidence and move on.

[clcaev]

Moreover, people often forget that the poster probably took some time out of their life to chronicle something. Starting by acknowledging personal experience and their effort documenting it goes along way towards building a collaborative discussion.

[rkangel]

I think there's hostility on both sides here. "Could you clarify a few things?" is one thing, but "I don't think the story adds up" is a direct accusation of lying.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

Maybe it's an unfair assumption on my part, but the post starts out exactly in the format of deliberately written /r/IAmVerySmart satires. But it's not. Just because you're using polite vocabulary does not mean bare toothed sentiment doesn't read through.

[cxr]

The problem is that the anecdote, as originally told, was told poorly. This:

> They took that momentum and started on their own novel IP as a quake licensee. They made a ahem mildly successful game named Medal of Honor

... makes it sound as if the studio started the franchise—which is not helped by the fact that it says "Medal of Honor" (which is apparently a thing), not "Medal of Honor: Allied Assault" (which is apparently the thing they actually meant). Anyone interested who tries to follow up based on these breadcrumbs is going to run into an issue. That is anyone—it doesn't take someone with a predisposition to being an asshole to end up here; even someone who read the initial comment and though, "wow, that's cool; I'm interested in learning more", and then proceeded to try to learn more would have gotten tripped up this way. (It's only by starting at the opposite end—with Call of Duty—and working backwards to its origin story that you're going to be able to resolve this.)

To make out as if someone is being automatically uncharitable and then airing emotion-driven grievances about it is, perversely, the most uncharitable thing (and, for the reasons just mentioned, perhaps only uncharitable thing) to have actually happened here.

[stackbutterflow]

It's easier to start from the end by googling "Call of Duty founders" than starting from Medal of Honor and hoping there aren't too many branches with only one leading to Call of Duty (which is the case here).

"Call of Duty founders" -> first link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Ward -> 3rd sentence: All of the 22 original team members of Infinity Ward came from the team that had worked on Medal of Honor: Allied Assault

[pmontra]

The tragedy of the written word between people that don't know each other. One could say "Could you clarify a few things?" in anger or "I don't think the story adds up" smiling and with a friendly tone. In writing the intention of the writer is in the mind of the reader.

[kritiko]

>One could say ... "I don't think the story adds up" smiling and with a friendly tone. While you can call bullshit in a friendly way, it's almost certainly better to assume that you are wrong if you think the other party is equally or more credible than you.

[eloisant]

That's why you have to be extra careful when writing, especially in discussions with strangers.

[prepend]

That’s also why you have to be extra careful when reading, especially in discussions with strangers.

When I read something where the author sounds rude, I try to step back and think if there is another way to interpret it.

It’s unlikely that strangers will accept advice on writing styles, so I try to adapt my reading style while I wait for a perfect world.

[hunter-gatherer]

It is indeed peculiar that even though humans have communicated over written word for so long, so many are seemingly unaware of this fact.

[pmontra]

I could be wrong but it was not so easy to write to strangers until very recently. Except laws, books (with plenty of space to make the context clear) and journalism (same thing) I think that most written communication was letters to friends and relatives. Again, a lot of shared context. It's the internet (forums, comments on sites and social media) that lets us write to strangers maybe more often than we're writing to people we know.

[rvanlaar]

Thanks for the responses, much appreciated.

[arinlen]

> They asked very politely for you to clarify some details after they tried themselves but were unable to verify it by looking it up.

Not really. GP straight up accused the OP of lying, under a thick but transparent layer of euphemisms. Coming at someone out of nowhere with accusations that "your story doesn't add up", specially after failing to do their homework, is the opposite of politeness.

[pdntspa]

This isn't wikipedia; claims on these forums do not need to be substantiated with fact. I agree with the sibling comments that there is too much fact-checking here and it is rude AF

Storytelling does not require that one cites their sources. Especially when that source is, "I lived it"

[jdbiggs]

The response could have been:

Wow cool! Can you tell us more about the story? Edit: Spelling

Instead it's a wikipedia dump.