â„–16545152[Quote]
Up
â„–16545156[Quote]
why are you alive
â„–16545168[Quote]
>>16545165Then explain how you are objectively better
â„–16545174[Quote]
>>16545165>>16545161>>16545145 (OP)janny here, all of these posts are from the same IP but different devices (their useragents are different). the IP is registered to some School District in Southeast Asia. My theory is that these are literal daycare children. , how could you tell?
â„–16545179[Quote]
>>16545168>No response You lost and you are a pussy
â„–16545189[Quote]
>>16545182The fact you won't answer proves you are both objectively worse and jealous of me. The other option is that your narcissism and autism won't let you
â„–16545210[Quote]
>>16545196It's a fact. Nobody who isn't an autistic narcissist would say they are "objectively better" without an explanation
â„–16545227[Quote]
>>16545210its very funny because i called you an autistic narcissist last time and now you are calling me that
w projection
â„–16545237[Quote]
>>16545227You called me it without proof because it perfectly describes you
â„–16545249[Quote]
>>16545237>No response I won
â„–16545269[Quote]
>>16545261But I bet you can't explain how the worse one on the left is better than the one on the right
â„–16545283[Quote]
>>16545269it speaks for itself
â„–16545289[Quote]
>>16545283Excuses and cope. Just say you are wrong
â„–16545294[Quote]
>>16545289Am I though?
What do the pictures say?
â„–16545295[Quote]
samefag talking to himself
â„–16545312[Quote]
>>16545294The pictures say
>Traced from a human so it looks like other variants<Unique and useful. It has it's uses â„–16545319[Quote]
>>16545312What uses?
Could you elaborate?
What uses does your 'jak have that are unique from others?
â„–16545325[Quote]
Every single 'jak in this thread sucks, you two faggots are the coal that is killing the sharty
â„–16545330[Quote]
I'm on NEO's side, doe
â„–16545335[Quote]
>>16545319It's got stubble, glasses, and an open mouth making it useful and a soyjak. The unique shape clearly enhances the usefulness
â„–16545352[Quote]
>>16545330Wait im retarded this guy is literally the tuvalu failquoter
I changed my mind MCCARTNEYARYAN VVON
â„–16545361[Quote]
>>16545343But it suffers from a plethora of things.
Your art style is clearly not as refined as mine
The glasses handles are white
The stubble doesn't go on the sides of the jak
â„–16545376[Quote]
>>16545361I think they're supposed to be single-line handles
â„–16545382[Quote]
>>16545376The fact that you wouldn't think that at first shows why my jaks are better
â„–16545384[Quote]
>>16545361>Your art style is clearly not as refined as mineCould you elaborate?
>The glasses handles are whiteClearly not; the above line, which is of a different thickness, indicates the top of the 3D shape, where the roof of the building starts.
>The stubble doesn't go on the sides of the jakSee picrel. It doesn't there either
â„–16545417[Quote]
>>16545412They all look the same and
>On the contrary Implies mine has stayed stagnent when it is the opposite
â„–16545428[Quote]
>They all look the same
Very subjective.
Also notice how you completely pivoted to discussing style, ignoring my other questions. Not really a "debate" then, is it?
â„–16545438[Quote]
>>16545428Your only question was
>Could you elaborate And by the fact you have said my style hasn't changed proves how you are making stuff up
â„–16545447[Quote]
>>16545438You are only further deflecting from my point.
â„–16545451[Quote]
>>16545447Your point being?
â„–16545472[Quote]
>>16545451You are obsessed with trying to trip me up on minor mistakes instead of addressing my full argument. You are shit-flinging, not "debating."
â„–16545483[Quote]
>>16545472Ok then, state your point on how you are objectively better
â„–16545494[Quote]
>>16545261They speak for themselves.
â„–16545508[Quote]
>>16545494But how, especially when you cherry picked a specific jak
â„–16545512[Quote]
>>16545508Ok, post your best 'jak then.
It will still prove my point.
â„–16545553[Quote]
>>16545547No argument therefore I win.
â„–16545556[Quote]
>>16545553Get you pussied out and didn't say anything about what I submitted
â„–16545565[Quote]
>>16545561Not only does geg autocorrect to get but you didn't adress the comment
â„–16545566[Quote]
>>16545472>>16545565Addressed it before.
â„–16545569[Quote]
>>16545566The fact that you can't say what is wrong with the 4 I submitted is just a clear view of your jealousy
â„–16545580[Quote]
>>16545577Friend inside of me (deltarune tomorrow btw)
â„–16545582[Quote]
>>16545569It speaks for itself.
You are a simple mind, but a stubborn mind.
Every new point you make I have already addressed.
I will not argue in circles.
â„–16545585[Quote]
>>165455354 of the most vantablack soyjaks on The sharty
â„–16545587[Quote]
>>16545582>It speaks for itselfThat is not an argument. You still have yet to say individually why they are bad
â„–16545591[Quote]
>>16545585Thank you for proving my point
â„–16545600[Quote]
>>16545591you two are in such an echo bubble you don't realize your arguing on a public imageboard where anyone can reply, im not him nigga and oreos
â„–16545607[Quote]
>>16545582And if you were to send 4 jaks I would critique them properly unlike you
â„–16545621[Quote]
>>16545600Retard, I replied to you BECAUSE you are a different person. You proved my point that anyone could see that his soyjaks are bviously bad.
â„–16545626[Quote]
>>16545621They aren't obviously bad. One nusoinigger doesn't speak for them all.
â„–16545643[Quote]
>>16545626Just kill yourself already
â„–16545646[Quote]
>>16545643Geg you ran out of arguments so you are leaking
â„–16545651[Quote]
>>16545646My argument is eternal and apparent.
â„–16545659[Quote]
>>16545651Your argument is
>YOU ARE MORE CREATIVE THAN ME SO THAT MEANS YOUR JAKS ARE USELESS. YOU MUST JAK HUMANS EVEN THOUGH THEY WILL LOOK LIKE PREEXISTING VARIANTS â„–16545663[Quote]
>>16545659>YOU ARE MORE CREATIVE THAN MEWould never say that.
>YOU MUST JAK HUMANS Would never say that.
>EVEN THOUGH THEY WILL LOOK LIKE PREEXISTING VARIANTS Autistic nonsense.
â„–16545664[Quote]
>>16545621Ah, i see, and that's true
â„–16545677[Quote]
>>16545663It's what you are thinking. You know I am more creative than you which is why you refuse the properly criticise my jaks
â„–16545684[Quote]
>>16545677Creative doesn't mean good.
â„–16545689[Quote]
>>16545677>It's what you are thinkingYou would struggle to read the mind of a mongoloid let alone me, the most intelligent person I know
â„–16545691[Quote]
>>16545684But mine are both creative and good
â„–16545694[Quote]
>>16545689>the most intelligent person I knowNot a narcissist btw
â„–16545701[Quote]
>>16545691No they aren't, 'jakking actual shit nobody cares about cartoons doesn't make you more creative, it just makes you look like you don't have any good 'jakking material (which you probably don't have)
â„–16545711[Quote]
>>16545701What I jak is good talking material because I have a good jakking eye. Unlike you I don't have to beg for images
â„–16545723[Quote]
>>16545711Your source material is weak and that leads to weak 'jaks, but you are to self-entitled to admit that they're bad so you force them on /soy/ instead of going back to the drawing board until you make an ACTUAL gem
â„–16545729[Quote]
hoo?
â„–16545731[Quote]
>>16545723How is the source material weak. Most gemmy variants are traced from drawings
â„–16545733[Quote]
>>16545729Look a talking fly
â„–16545735[Quote]
>>16545731Most gemmy 'jaks are traced from people
â„–16545736[Quote]
avatarfag drama
â„–16545742[Quote]
>>16545736Everyone on the sharty is an avatarfag because everyone secretly wants to use twitter
â„–16545744[Quote]
>>16545735Those are the original variants which are exceptions. Most good nuvariants are traced from drawings
â„–16545761[Quote]
>>16545757This is also coal
â„–16545767[Quote]
>>16545761You made it and post it
â„–16545769[Quote]
I'm tired of this faggot. Why can't we just doxx him and move on
â„–16545770[Quote]
>>16545711This is funny because you just replied to some random phono, not even me
>>16545600so you just proved this guys point too
â„–16545772[Quote]
>>16545767I did not make this shit
â„–16545774[Quote]
>>16545769>DOX PEOPLE WHO CREATE BETTER JAKS THAN MEyou are pathetic
â„–16545777[Quote]
>>16545774YOU. MAKE. COAL!
â„–16545779[Quote]
>>16545777You have no proof of it being coal
>It's self explanatory And all your other cope isn't proof
â„–16545780[Quote]
>>16545770True. This nigga doesn't know who he's arguing with
â„–16545786[Quote]
>>16545780It's an anonymous site retard
â„–16545790[Quote]
>>16545779The 'jaks are bad because they're bad, stop asking for "objective" reason why literal art is bad.
â„–16545791[Quote]
>>16545786You should still be able to tell
â„–16545793[Quote]
>>16545790>Because they are badNot even constructive
â„–16545804[Quote]
>>16545793They're traced from bad material, they don't look like real life people (nobody looks like that), they have no specific characteristics that make them more usable than other variants, often times they're so hyperspecific that nobody who doesn't know the source material would want to use them, and they are way too thickly drawn.
â„–16545814[Quote]
>>16545804>They're traced from bad materialMaking fiends, apple and onion and other gems are good material
>they're so hyperspecific that nobody who doesn't know the source material would want to use themNone of my jaks are like this, send proof if I'm wrong
>and they are way too thickly drawn7 line thickness is the correct line thickness for soyjak outlines
â„–16545817[Quote]
>>16545813All of this (especially the first) also applies to you
â„–16545818[Quote]
>>16545814why would anyone ever use Apple and Onion soyjaks?
â„–16545819[Quote]
>Making fiends, apple and onion and other gems are good material>THEYRE GOOD BECAUSE THEYRE JUST GOOD, OKAY????????>>16545793ultimate hypocrisy
â„–16545821[Quote]
>>16545819If you have watched them you would know they are good. Also you ignored my other points
â„–16545822[Quote]
>>16545817I'm still not McCartneyGOD retard
â„–16545825[Quote]
>>16545822Why post his shitty poopsons
â„–16545842[Quote]
>>16545535Who looks like this
â„–16545843[Quote]
>>16545821>Didn't adress my other pointsI won
â„–16545848[Quote]
>>16545844Soyboys look like drawings of vegetables?
â„–16545854[Quote]
>>16545848They have stubble, glasses and are bald which makes them mock soyboys
â„–16545857[Quote]
>>16545851Who is this mocking
â„–16545858[Quote]
>>16545854I think you fundamentally misunderstand what makes a soyjak good. Just because something can be classified as IAS doesn't make it a soyjak award
â„–16545859[Quote]
>>16545857the person i quoted
â„–16545863[Quote]
>>16545860Soyboys look like… Oh wait it looks like every other soyjak variant with zero originality
>>16545858If being IAS doesn't make something a soyjak why do IAS standards exist
â„–16545873[Quote]
>>16545863Truth most nuvariants are iron at best and brimstone at worst
Either way tipson btfo