245 replies to this topic

[Sriracha_Sauce]

Kids pls, all of you

You're a bunch of big baby whiners, talk about the real issues and go wank off about politics definitions elsewhere

[Acguy]

all of you

 

Come on now, you're not really telling me "he who smelt it dealt it" just because I've been telling SS he needs to return to the actual subject of discussion?

[SS396]

Come on now, you're not really telling me "he who smelt it dealt it" just because I've been telling SS he needs to return to the actual subject of discussion?

 

The subject of the current discussion which you mistakenly identified as something to do with politics (even after I corrected you) and proceeded to run with it was why you should refrain from making a further ass of yourself here on the Hawken forums.  And don't worry, everyone already knows I'm an ass, thats nothing new and you'd just be stating the obvious again.

 

If you'd like we can return to the original argument you've willingly ignored by enlightening us as to the Webster's definition of exclusive, so we can return to the original discussion about exclusives that was ongoing.  The ball was in your court the entire time, you simply ignored it acting like it wasn't there and changed the subject.  I tried to keep you inline quite a few times, and this seems to be a notable pattern when dealing with you here, not to mention your over exaggeration of stories as examples and your choice of controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and movie theater shootings.

[Acguy]

I already went past that. The fact that they were promised something exclusive doesn't mean it's worth keeping that promise or that it's good to keep that promise. If something bad is promised, better to break the promise. If you disagree, I can just promise to do something horrible then ask you if you would rather I keep the promise. The fact that I used examples that made people uncomfortable doesn't mean my argument isn't completely solid. Saying they're too extreme is tantamount to just complaining that I'm using OP equipment. That-which-was-promised is more important than the promise itself, thus all that needs to be discussed is exclusivity, not the fact that the exclusivity was promised.

 

So then since we've gotten past the "but they need to keep their word!" part of my opposition's argument, we're left with the question "is exclusivity really good/beneficial/valuable, or is it bad?". The argument claiming it's bad can very easily point out that the party who holds on to the exclusives doesn't lose what they have either way , whereas the party who is getting potentially let in can get more than they did beforehand. On the other hand, whenever pressed to explain what the benefit of exclusivity is, people who say it's "good" just respond with "well uh, I like it, even though it isn't really anything at all, you know?" because they don't really have a reason to make their claim. If you want to say "but I was proooomised it," go back up to the first paragraph. 

 

The only actually pressing argument is the one amid and jeff put forward; even if I can argue that people's will to retain exclusivity is nothing more than hysteria (since people are coveting "exclusivity," which is literally nothing but a categorization rather than a perceivable thing or phenomena), it's a semi-moot point since mass hysteria is still something a seller would want to watch out for. Valid as that is, it's valid with a catch given what a self-fulfilling prophecy that can be as far as public opinion goes.

 

And finally, if the fact that someone won't google something for you is too much for you to bear, then that's a personal problem.

 

And don't worry, everyone already knows I'm an ass, thats nothing new and you'd just be stating the obvious again.

 

That's a really cute way to say "please stop making fun of me".

Edited by Acguy, 07 January 2017 - 04:51 PM.

[SS396]

blah blah blah blah

 

In all your extra fluff and excess bull fuzzy bunny, I still don't see a valid definition of exclusive.  Once we accept the terms of what exclusive means then we can move forward from there.

 

Why are you squirming around and avoiding it at all costs?  It just makes you look desperate by not responding to what has been asked of you multiple times.

[Acguy]

In all your extra fluff and excess bull fuzzy bunny, I still don't see a valid definition of exclusive.  Once we accept the terms of what exclusive means then we can move forward from there.

 

Why are you squirming around and avoiding it at all costs?  It just makes you look desperate by not responding to what has been asked of you multiple times.

 

Why are you saying I'm avoiding things when you just avoided three solid paragraphs? Jeeze Trump, you really just can't stop asking me to say "radical islamic terrorism" now can you? Are you just looking for a excuse to abandon the conversation perhaps? Maybe you just can't formulate a response?

Edited by Acguy, 07 January 2017 - 05:47 PM.

[DallasCreeper]

Not sure if anyone else shares this sentiment, but I think this is getting a tad out of hand.

Edited by DallasCreeper, 07 January 2017 - 05:49 PM.

[-Tj-]

The fact that they were promised something exclusive doesn't mean it's worth keeping that promise or that it's good to keep that promise.

If someone promised me something and then later broke that promise, I would have difficulty ever trusting them again.

If something bad is promised, better to break the promise.

Except what was promised wasn't bad at all to anyone except those who want it and can't accept the fact that they missed out on an exclusive, time-sensitive deal.

[SS396]

Why are you saying I'm avoiding things when you just avoided three solid paragraphs? Jeeze Trump, you really just can't stop asking me to say "radical islamic terrorism" now can you? Are you just looking for a excuse to abandon the conversation perhaps? Maybe you just can't formulate a response?

 

Its a very simple thing I have asked multiple times to provide the definition of exclusive as a baseline, a child should be able to complete the task, and yet for some reason you can't and won't.

 

This is for your own good.

[Acguy]

If someone promised me something and then later broke that promise, I would have difficulty ever trusting them again.

 

That's not necessarily important. If I promised to go blow away a kindergarten classroom, are you going to be more concerned with your preconceived notions of "trust" or are you going to be more concerned with the content of the promise rather than just the promise? There's no reason to talk about "the promise" before "the promised".

 

Except what was promised wasn't bad at all to anyone except those who want it and can't accept the fact that they missed out on an exclusive, time-sensitive deal.

 

"it only hurts the people who are negatively affected by it!"

 

The same could be said for the holocaust, that's not an argument. You haven't made exclusivity look any less terrible.

 

 

 

Still making excuses due to your lack of counterargument. If it's so important to you, surely you can contribute yourself, right? Oh wait, you can't, just like how you can't make an actual response even though everyone else can.

Edited by Acguy, 07 January 2017 - 06:55 PM.

[-Tj-]

That's not necessarily important. If I promised to go blow away a kindergarten classroom, are you going to be more concerned with your preconceived notions of "trust" or are you going to be more concerned with the content of the promise rather than just the promise? There's no reason to talk about "the promise" before "the promised".

 

...

 

The same could be said for the holocaust, that's not an argument. You haven't made exclusivity look any less terrible.

 

Conversely, you've somehow managed to bring shooting up children's classrooms and the holocaust into a conversation that had nothing to do with it.

 

That aside, to answer your question:

 

If I promised to go blow away a kindergarten classroom, are you going to be more concerned with your preconceived notions of "trust" or are you going to be more concerned with the content of the promise rather than just the promise?

 

The answer here, surprisingly or not, is that it doesn't matter what the content of the promise is, even if it's shooting up a school. It's called "crying wolf." If someone, anyone, makes a promise, good or bad, and they later break that promise, there will be less people who will believe them the next time they promise something else. If they go on to break that promise, even less people will believe them, and so on till there's no one left to believe them anymore...

 

... and then the wolf ate the boy. THE END

[Acguy]

Conversely, you've somehow managed to bring shooting up children's classrooms and the holocaust into a conversation that had nothing to do with it.

 

I've made them have something to do with it. If someone hands me an equation, I'm gonna plug in some variables. The fact that I've looked at particular variables does not mean I've ceased using the original equation, just as the fact that I've made an analogy to math doesn't mean I've left the actual subject.

 

The answer here, surprisingly or not, is that it doesn't matter what the content of the promise is, even if it's shooting up a school. It's called "crying wolf." If someone, anyone, makes a promise, good or bad, and they later break that promise, there will be less people who will believe them the next time they promise something else. If they go on to break that promise, even less people will believe them, and so on till there's no one left to believe them anymore...

 

... and then the wolf ate the boy. THE END

 

If that's your way of stepping out of a discussion, then fair enough, I'm not keeping you here. You're still very willfully glossing over the fact that any "boy who cried wolf" issue can very easily be dwarfed by issues stemming from the content of the promise. I wouldn't feel deceived when someone who'd promised me exclusivity went back on it, because I'd have just have already felt that deception when they promised it to me in the first place, as though exclusivity actually were something to have in and of itself as opposed to just the indication that others would have less.

Edited by Acguy, 08 January 2017 - 05:51 AM.

[-Tj-]

I haven't stepped out. The wolf ate the boy and the story ended.

I'm actually not glossing over anything. Promises broken lead to mistrust, however small. It's why relationships can end from them, people lose trust in politicians, and customers stop going to stores who break their own return policies. It's why stores who have customer information stolen make huge strides to try and win customer faith back, and exes try so hard to win back their former partners.

If you feel that any promise made is a promise that could, would, or should be broken, then I'm not going to change your mind. But you're definitely making a mountain out of a molehill. The fact remains: a broken promise leads to mistrust, however small the promise or resulting mistrust.

[Silverfire]

Bottom line, RLD needs to avoid creating any more mistrust or negative attitudes towards their development on Hawken through whatever actions they take as developers, that's common sense.  Re-releasing Vanguard Initiative content would most definitely do so, as evidenced by TJ and SS396's responses.  Releasing holiday cosmetics, in my opinion is a slightly less controversial issue, and while RLD could take flak for releasing already-in-the-game content and be viewed as "lazy devs," to me, that's far lesser of an evil than releasing definitively stated exclusive content in the Vanguard Initiative and be viewed further as lazy, untrustworthy developers.  

 

I for one would be more than happy to see Chinese New Year cosmetics, or just holiday themed stuff.  I would personally jump on Chinese New Year stuff being Asian and having missed the sale in 2013.  Did anyone complain when the holiday stuff went on sale this past holiday season?

Edited by Silverfire, 08 January 2017 - 04:03 PM.

[SS396]

I haven't stepped out. The wolf ate the boy and the story ended.

 

Such a tragic event.

 

SilverFire don't forget DieselCat, Bacon_Avenger, Jeff, ButtSatisfier, Wischatesjesus and Amid, they all had valid points also, sometimes much better than mine.  I am glad they spoke up and expressed their own opinions.

[PoopSlinger]

If someone promised me something and then later broke that promise, I would have difficulty ever trusting them again.

 

What if someone promised you something and then later that someone folded and all their fuzzy bunny was sold to someone else who had no real part of the promise and no reason to keep the promises of some previous group of failures?

[-Tj-]

What if someone promised you something and then later that someone folded and all their fuzzy bunny was sold to someone else who had no real part of the promise and no reason to keep the promises of some previous group of failures?

I would still expect them to honor the original promise, or offer something of the same worth or better in place of it, to maintain the integrity of the original promise. After all, if the someone who purchased the fuzzy bunny from the someone who folded wants to keep me as someone they want to keep dealing with, they should try their best to keep me happy, else they might lose my trust from the start. They may have no real obligation to do so, but as a third party who had no control over the acquisition and may or may not have wanted such an acquisition to be made or necessary in the first place, I would likely already feel pretty insecure about the situation and would be pretty shaky in the deal at this point, and part of the value in someone acquiring someone else's dealings is also acquiring their contacts/customers.

Some examples:
A car company can't maintain operations and sells the company to another. Many 5-year/50,000 mile warranties are still in effect by the time the acquisition occurs. If the owners of such vehicles lost their warranties AND were not issued new ones with the same or better terms, the new company owners would likely lose those customers for life.

I buy a flashlight from a guy selling them, who promised me free batteries for life at a rate of 2 per 3 months. He goes bankrupt, but someone else buys his business. I would not expect the new owners to honor the original promise, but if they didnt, there's no guarantee I would continue doing any future business with them, or even recommend their newly-acquired product to anyone.

A software company who makes graphic design software sells their software to a rival company. The original company promised free upgrades for 2 versions. Many customers have just purchased the software before the acquisition and haven't had any upgrades. If the new owners don't honor the 2 free upgrades promise from the original company, likely all customers would not like or trust the new company, unless a better upgrade deal was in the works to replace it.

[Acguy]

A car company can't maintain operations and sells the company to another. Many 5-year/50,000 mile warranties are still in effect by the time the acquisition occurs. If the owners of such vehicles lost their warranties AND were not issued new ones with the same or better terms

 

You're still just using convenient examples to avoid the truth. If they removed the old terms and replaced them with better ones, that would be breaking a promise if they'd claimed the original terms would be set in stone. The fact that you've listed this exception means you know that it's the content of the promise which precedes the promise, and are willfully turning a blind eye to that fact. The "promise" argument has absolutely no soundness unless you can verify that exclusivity was a good thing to have been promised, which you've demonstrated you can't. You're just lying at this point.

Edited by Acguy, 09 January 2017 - 02:42 PM.

[-Tj-]

Those examples were listed to show that promises broken lead to consumer mistrust. I can see why you didn't get that... You just want to be right, so you're trying to find anything to supporting your argument no matter how paper thin the "evidence." You can keep arguing about it if you like, but the point stands: if you break a promise, you lose trust. If trust is lost, if it's important to you, you do everything you can to win it back.

[Acguy]

No, you don't do everything you can to win it back, that's a completely stupid idea. You don't fly airplanes into buildings to win it back. You don't do plenty of things. There are infinite counterexamples to your claim. I don't desire to be right Tj, I already am; I desire to convince.

 

The fact that you've admitted changing a promise to better terms is acceptable means you already know it's a matter of the terms rather than the promise itself. Trying to dumb it down and pretend the promise is just one lone boolean variable is far worse than giving new players access to new content. You're a rhetorical cheat who's pushing a false, trimmed down narrative to ignore counterargument.

Edited by Acguy, 09 January 2017 - 03:31 PM.

[Silverfire]

You're still just using convenient examples to avoid the truth. If they removed the old terms and replaced them with better ones, that would be breaking a promise if they'd claimed the original terms would be set in stone. The fact that you've listed this exception means you know that it's the content of the promise which precedes the promise, and are willfully turning a blind eye to that fact. The "promise" argument has absolutely no soundness unless you can verify that exclusivity was a good thing to have been promised, which you've demonstrated you can't. You're just lying at this point.

 

Philosophical debate about truth or whatever you want to talk about, ethically, it is entirely controversial to consider re-releasing such cosmetics, regardless of how you spin it. Debating the theoreticals is stupid and getting nowhere clearly.  

 

Here's a question for you: Do you want the Vanguard Initiative cosmetics re-released, despite the fact that they were previously limited to purchasers of the Vanguard Initiative and were previously promised that the cosmetic items would be kept exclusive only to them?  Which is more important, the potential profit that can be had from releasing the cosmetics, or maintaining a healthy developer-customer relationship and building trust?  The way I see this situation is: do the devs go for the quick dollar by reselling the VI cosmetics which may subsequently destroy trust they've built up with the community and tarnish their reputations or remain honorable and respectful of the previous developers' actions regarding the VI cosmetics and do other things?

Edited by Silverfire, 09 January 2017 - 03:31 PM.

[Acguy]

Here's a question for you: Do you want the Vanguard Initiative cosmetics re-released, despite the fact that they were previously limited to purchasers of the Vanguard Initiative and were previously promised that the cosmetic items would be kept exclusive only to them?  Which is more important, the potential profit that can be had from releasing the cosmetics, or maintaining a healthy developer-customer relationship and building trust?

 

I've already stated that if devs need to conform to the demands hysterics by otherwise-reasonlessly preserving the exclusivity of the VI to turn a buck, then they may as well given that they're on their last legs. 

 

Here's a question for you; why is this just about their actions? Why is this not about asking the players, like Tj, to rise to a better standard? Why should I not demand other players stop worrying about the promise so that the devs can in turn afford to sell the VI? Why have you stopped your question where you have? Yes, if people fail to rise to the standard, then the devs can't do much about that; that doesn't mean they shouldn't rise to that standard.

 

And "regardless of how I spin it"? There is zero spin, a counterexample to a claim is a counterexample to a claim. If you aren't fimiliar with "theoreticals," or in other words "formal logic," feel free to start off by reading about how modus ponens and modus tollens work.

Edited by Acguy, 09 January 2017 - 03:47 PM.

[Silverfire]

I've already stated that if devs need to conform to the demands hysterics by otherwise-reasonlessly preserving the exclusivity of the VI to turn a buck, then they may as well given that they're on their last legs. 

 

Here's a question for you; why is this just about their actions? Why is this not about asking the players, like Tj, to rise to a better standard? Why should I not demand other players stop worrying about the promise so that the devs can in turn afford to sell the VI? Why have you stopped your question where you have? Yes, if people fail to rise to the standard, then the devs can't do much about that; that doesn't mean they shouldn't rise to that standard.

 

And "regardless of how I spin it"? There is zero spin, a counterexample to a claim is a counterexample to a claim. If you aren't fimiliar with "theoreticals," or in other words "formal logic," feel free to start off by reading about how modus ponens and modus tollens work.

 

What demands hysterics? There are reasons to maintain the exclusivity.

 

Is it ethical to release an exclusive item? What is more important? The quick dollar or preserving trust not only in this community, but in the gaming world?  What effects could it have on RLD's other games and future games it takes on if those communities learn that RLD is willing to break promises about content exclusivity just for the money? I maintain that it's bad for their reputation, which is arguably more important than the dollar here. Just because someone is willing to pay does not mean it is right to do so.

 

Re-releasing the cosmetics is arguably lowering one's standards and ignoring the ethical issue just for $$$.  Do you want these cosmetics? 

 

 

 

 

It's also spelled "familiar."

Edited by Silverfire, 09 January 2017 - 04:03 PM.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

What if someone promised you something and then later that someone folded and all their fuzzy bunny was sold to someone else who had no real part of the promise and no reason to keep the promises of some previous group of failures?

 

Ever wonder what happens with the personal information you gave to MySpace (an example) (edit) or Linked-In, after it's bought?

Edited by Call_Me_Ishmael, 09 January 2017 - 04:09 PM.

[Acguy]

I intended to say demands [of] hysterics; the demand that the exclusive remain as it is.

 

 

Is it ethical to release an exclusive item? What is more important? The quick dollar or preserving trust not only in this community, but in the gaming world?  What effects could it have on RLD's other games and future games it takes on if those communities learn that RLD is willing to break promises about content exclusivity just for the money? I maintain that it's bad for their reputation, which is arguably more important than the dollar here. Just because someone is willing to pay does not mean it is right to do so.

 

Re-releasing the cosmetics is arguably lowering one's standards and ignoring the ethical issue just for $$$.  Do you want these cosmetics?

 

You're blatantly assuming the conclusion in the poof. You ask "is it ethical to release an exclusive item," and within your explanation for your answer ("yes") you treat it as unethical before you've actually answered that question. You can't bank off the fact that removing exclusivity is "bad" prior to proving such a notion, and you've taken no steps to do so aside from use negative connotations in your language.

 

You then say "Just because someone is willing to pay does not mean it is right to do so," which is just shifting the burden of proof. I could just as easily say "Just because someone is willing to pay does not mean it isn't right to do so" given the counterexamples I've brought up. Your statement is inconsequential. If you really think I'm the one who's a "spinner" I can write out my arguments and continue the conversation through formal, predicate logic.

Edited by Acguy, 09 January 2017 - 04:10 PM.

[Silverfire]

I intended to say demands [of] hysterics; the demand that the exclusive remain as it is.

 

 

 

You're blatantly assuming the conclusion in the poof. You ask "is it ethical to release an exclusive item," and within your explanation for your answer ("yes") you treat it as unethical before you've actually answered that question. You can't bank off the fact that removing exclusivity is "bad" prior to proving such a notion, and you've taken no steps to do so aside from use provocative connotations in your language.

 

You then say "Just because someone is willing to pay does not mean it is right to do so," which is just shifting the burden of proof. I could just as easily say "Just because someone is willing to pay does not mean it isn't right to do so" given the counterexamples I've brought up. Your statement is inconsequential. If you really think I'm the one who's a "spinner" I can write out my arguments and continue the conversation through formal, predicate logic.

 

You're also blatantly ignoring the issue that arises from re-releasing the VI cosmetics and also blatantly ignoring the question of "do you want these cosmetics?"  

 

So we're both being blatant.  We can argue logical definitions all day but the fundamental issues remain. You're just distracting from the main point arguing semantics and logic statements or whatever it is.

 

 

 

So then, to make it simpler, without any conclusion assumption, I've stated my opinion, so just the question. Is it ethical to re-release VI cosmetics, particularly due to the previous promise of exclusivity?  Is it ethical for RLD to ignore this exclusivity? Ignore the money.

[Silverfire]

You're ignoring the questions and focusing on the structure of arguments, which makes me guess that you're not interested in discussing the issue and would rather focus on writing everything out in "formal, predicate logic" and are simply arguing for argument's sake.  Why are you still here?

Edited by Silverfire, 09 January 2017 - 04:16 PM.

[Acguy]

"do you want these cosmetics?"  

 

Absolutely, why do you think I'm here?

 

So we're both being blatant. 

 

No, I'm not.

 

 

you're not interested in discussing the issue and would rather focus on writing everything out in "formal, predicate logic"

 

Because that's how you prove an argument to be wrong

 

That's literally it

[Silverfire]

Absolutely, why do you think I'm here?

 

 

No, I'm not.

 

 

 

Because that's how you prove an argument to be wrong

 

That's literally it

 

If you're interested in the topic then talk about it, not the logical structures.  Discussing and arguing such logic in abstract terms and not directly relating it to why you want the cosmetics isn't going to get you very far here.  Focusing on disproving us through abstract logic terms and not proving your case more definitively isn't working.

 

 

 

So let me ask again.  

 

 

Is it ethical to re-release VI cosmetics, particularly due to the previous promise of exclusivity?  Is it ethical for RLD to ignore this exclusivity? Ignore the money.

Edited by Silverfire, 09 January 2017 - 04:22 PM.

[Acguy]

If you're interested in the topic then talk about it, not the logical structures.  Discussing and arguing such logic in abstract terms and not directly relating it to why you want the cosmetics isn't going to get you very far here.  Focusing on disproving us through abstract logic terms and not proving your case more definitively isn't working.

 

This is willful ignorance

 

"uh yeah you don't have to be logical to be right"

 

"I mean yeah ultimately my argument is literally gibberish, but I still like my conclusion so it's still a good argument"

 

This is why I opted to take baby steps first and work my way upwards, instead of putting down my valid argument again only for you to simply respond with the same invalid concerns.

 

If you want to determine if something falls under the category of "ethical," we're going to need to suppose some definition of "ethical". Generally speaking, this is a matter of giving and taking given the subject at hand. So tell me, what do VI purchasers lose by letting other people gain? If your give me the same kneejerk "trust!" response, I'm just going to roll my eyes.

[Silverfire]

This is willful ignorance

 

"uh yeah you don't have to be logical to be right"

 

"I mean yeah ultimately my argument is literally gibberish, but I still like my conclusion so it's still a good argument"

 

This is why I opted to take baby steps first and work my way upwards, instead of putting down my valid argument again only for you to simply respond with the same invalid concerns.

 

If you want to determine if something falls under the category of "ethical," we're going to need to suppose some definition of "ethical". Generally speaking, this is a matter of giving and taking given the subject at hand. So tell me, what do VI purchasers lose by letting other people gain? If your give me the same kneejerk "trust!" response, I'm just going to roll my eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's use the first one because I would imagine you'd agree the second definition doesn't exactly fit the situation.

 

 

 

This is how I see it.

 

VI purchasers lose exclusivity in cosmetics.  Other people who purchase these cosmetics gain, well, cosmetics that were previously exclusive.

 

However, that's only one side of it.  What about RLD? They're the bigger picture.

 

RLD gains money.  RLD damages reputation.  That's how I see it in the most simplest of terms.  

 

 

 

I get that you want it.  I want it too.  I would love to have the VI cosmetics.  Seriously.  Who doesn't want exclusive cosmetics?  But for RLD, who makes the decisions, is it socially acceptable, is it ethical, is it moral to trample on the previous statement of exclusivity set by ADH, the previous developers? Also, why isn't trust a valid response?  Put it in simple terms.

[-Tj-]

No, you don't do everything you can to win it back, that's a completely stupid idea. You don't fly airplanes into buildings to win it back. You don't do plenty of things. There are infinite counterexamples to your claim. I don't desire to be right Tj, I already am; I desire to convince.

 

The fact that you've admitted changing a promise to better terms is acceptable means you already know it's a matter of the terms rather than the promise itself. Trying to dumb it down and pretend the promise is just one lone boolean variable is far worse than giving new players access to new content. You're a rhetorical cheat who's pushing a false, trimmed down narrative to ignore counterargument.

 

It was pretty clear to me from early on that you're the type that can't accept when you're wrong, no matter the evidence. But that doesn't really matter to me, really. I've spoken my peace and provided examples. If you don't like those examples simply because it doesn't fit your model, or because it proves you wrong and you can't accept it, then there's really nothing more I have to say to you. I've brought reason and logic with my posts, but you spit in my face while yelling "YEAH WELL YOU'RE WRONG."

 

Like I said, you can continue to think you're right, but it's long been a proven and accepted fact that breaking a promise leads to mistrust. Everything I've said in relation to this is in support of this fact. But if you really want to believe that breaking a promise, no matter what it is, doesn't actually do so, then feel free to continue thinking that way.

 

But if you're going to say stuff like this:

 

You're a rhetorical cheat who's pushing a false, trimmed down narrative to ignore counterargument.

 

... then you should probably look in the mirror before being the pot that calls the kettle black.

[Acguy]

That's not what's meant by "define ethical". I'm talking about what can fall into or out of the category of "ethical". That's like being asked what "redness" is and responding with "the quality of being red". Yeah, sure, but that's besides the point.

 

VI purchasers lose exclusivity in cosmetics.  

 

Which is...? 

 

It's nothing. It isn't a thing. It isn't a "what". How would you perceive "exclusivity"? It isn't "there". To ask me to prove that is isn't is just demanding that I prove a negative. So again, what do VI purchasers lose?

 

You're cutting people off from gaining something purely for the sake of an abstraction rather than a thing, and yet you're telling me I'm the one who needs to "back off from theoreticals" in spite of the fact that my so-called "theoreticals" don't actually restrict anyone.

 

However, that's only one side of it.  What about RLD? They're the bigger picture.

 

No, they aren't. The bigger picture is the whole actual picture, not just the part of it pertaining to RLD that you've snipped off of it. The lone reason why cosmetics shouldn't be released is because it would damage their reputation. The lone reason why it would damage their reputation is because absurd fanatics think that the "loss" of their "exclusivity" phantom is somehow an actual loss. Therefore, change the fanatics and the RLD part of the picture comes out fine. Since the RLD part is completely dependent on the other part, the other part is the only thing we need to play with.

 

It was pretty clear to me from early on that you're the type that can't accept when you're wrong, no matter the evidence. But that doesn't really matter to me, really. I've spoken my peace and provided examples. If you don't like those examples simply because it doesn't fit your model, or because it proves you wrong and you can't accept it, then there's really nothing more I have to say to you. I've brought reason and logic with my posts, but you spit in my face while yelling "YEAH WELL YOU'RE WRONG."

 

Like I said, you can continue to think you're right, but it's long been a proven and accepted fact that breaking a promise leads to mistrust. Everything I've said in relation to this is in support of this fact. But if you really want to believe that breaking a promise, no matter what it is, doesn't actually do so, then feel free to continue thinking that way.

 

But if you're going to say stuff like this:

 

 

... then you should probably look in the mirror before being the pot that calls the kettle black.

 

Really? Reeeally? You've used logic? Tell me, what about this statement is logical:

 

If trust is lost, if it's important to you, you do everything you can to win it back.

 

That's literally nothing but passion. It's an empty claim, and one which can be disprove via logical counterexample.

 

Logic is not the process of using smooth or slick connotations to sound witty

 

Logic is not your ability to feign confidence

 

Logic is not your ability to say "yeah well I know what you are but what am I? haha gotcha dude see that sick logic I just did?" while ignoring the fact that, rather than say "you're wrong" I actually said "you're definitively wrong and here's why" in spite of the fact that you have done nothing more than scribble down claims and only claims

Edited by Acguy, 09 January 2017 - 05:25 PM.

[Silverfire]

To players who might not know about the VI cosmetics, sure, it'll just appear like a new set of cosmetics. Dig a little deeper and people will soon realize that RLD would have blatantly disrespected the exclusivity agreement between VI purchaser and ADH, which RLD should feel compelled to uphold.  That would most definitely damage RLD's reputation as a game development company in the larger picture, and by larger picture, I mean the game development industry.  You don't need so-called "fanatics" to affect RLD's reputation among gamers.  RLD's reputation matters.  They stand to gain money, but can potentially lose players and their reputation and this mythical "trust."  They stand to lose the moral dilemma that is releasing an exclusive cosmetic restricted to a very specific group of people.  It's not absurd for people to wish to retain their membership to the club.  

 

 

 

Exclusivity doesn't exist?

 

 

So such exclusive practices, like citizenship of a country, admittance into an academic honor society, being in a relationship, trying out for sports teams and the Omni clan, these theoreticals don't exist? We should get rid of country citizenship? We should do away with academic honor societies? People's romantic relationships? Ban Omni for being selective with potential clan members?  Are these things wrong because they shouldn't exist, or just don't exist tangibly?

 

The abstraction is proven through the real tangible world - in this case, namely being the only ones who own the VI cosmetics. This "concept" or "abstraction" of exclusivity is aided by the real world privileges granted to those within the "exclusivity circle," so to speak.

Edited by Silverfire, 09 January 2017 - 05:51 PM.

[Acguy]

"I can define it so it exists"

 

Wow, now I've seen it all. 

 

"Define god"

"A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity"

 

"God has a definition, therefore it exists"

 

Yeah, we just solved thousands of years worth of debate with those three easy steps. What was everyone thinking?

Edited by Acguy, 09 January 2017 - 05:51 PM.

[Silverfire]

Wow, now I've seen it all. 

 

"Define god"

"A superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity"

 

"God has a definition, therefore it exists"

 

Yeah, we just solved thousands of years worth of debate with those three easy steps. What was everyone thinking?

 

You're cherry picking and misrepresenting my post instead of addressing the discussion points.  Congratulations.

 

 

There is tangible evidence for exclusivity in VI purchasers.  There is tangible evidence for citizenship.  And so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But good job, you just checkmated all atheists! They have no argument!  You got them good!

[Acguy]

That's not what a straw man is, I've reapplied the same principle you presented. It's no different from when Tj said "XXXX is always true" and I refuted it by saying "in YYYY scenario it isn't, therefore your claim that it is always true is false." By talking about YYYY instead of XXXX in such a fashion, a strawman is not being committed.

 

There is tangible evidence for exclusivity in VI purchasers.  

 

No, there isn't. A relationship is not tangible. It is a relation between tangible things, not a tangible thing in and of itself. You're melting parts of the distinction into eachother. If you studied actual logic instead of debate-class fallacies you'd probably understand some basic existential etc concepts. You don't learn math by writing down every wrong way to do it.

 

"Uhh but that's a strawman because we're not talking about math, we're talking about logic!"

 

Logic is literally pre-math.

Edited by Acguy, 09 January 2017 - 06:05 PM.

[Silverfire]

Is it moral to break a previous promise for money?

Edited by Silverfire, 09 January 2017 - 06:10 PM.

[Acguy]

In some cases yes, it's morally permissible. The fact that they gain money certainly does not guarantee that they are doing something immoral.

[Silverfire]

In some cases yes, it's morally permissible. The fact that they gain money certainly does not guarantee that they are doing something immoral.

 

Would releasing the VI cosmetics be immoral from the developers' standpoint?