Pay to Win

Rave the Histborn

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

This line right here discredits your claim to not being hell bent on being right. You can change words and use 3rd party quotes but in reality when you use quotes than only support your narrative then are you actually being unbiased or just trying to fit your narrative. Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative.

When did i change words? All my stuff is quoted and I keep copy and pasting stuff from replies. You can't keep repeating that it's not pay to win it's pay to (insert word of the day here) and expect it to hold up. It doesn't especially when you take the line of reasoning and apply it to anything else.

"Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative."

How? I'm consistent with pay to win being pay to win. Fitting things to a narrative is when you take something like pay to win and you have to constantly change the words (pay to short cut, pay for convenience, etc.) to fit the story. Pay to win is pay to win, and that hasn't changed for me.

You can use unsourced quotes from every friend, acquaintance and family member if you want and it will carry the same pertinence as that Wiki article you quoted does. But since you chose to use a "definition" of pay to win from that Wiki that you read that is also unsourced they are the same thing, a subjective opinion of something.

I can go look up the definition of a helicopter in a dictionary but then define it as an airplane, throw it in a Wiki unsourced and have someone call it the correct definition. The way I looked at it is subjective and not objective, which is what you're doing.

Again, hit me with a quote of something I misquoted. I get you think the definition is wrong because it goes against your perceptions of pay to win but like I said, the definition I linked is a 3rd party definition but I've still yet to see anyone prove it wrong. The best you can do is shriek and clutch your pearls and wail "oh WIKIPEDIA" as you gnash your teeth. That is my definition of pay to win and what I'm defending and I HAVEN'T DEVIATED FROM THAT. I wish you could be as consistent but you're too busy dodging and weaving the points, it's not pay to win *dodge* it's pay to go fast. It's not a subjective opinion, it is objective fact. I don't have to keep changing it to my definition of pay to win, cuz it fits this perfectly, too bad you can't say the same.

"I can go look up the definition of a helicopter in a dictionary but then define it as an airplane, throw it in a Wiki unsourced and have someone call it the correct definition."

They have editors for stuff like that genius. I hope you're wearing socks cuz this is going to knock them off but Wikipedia is actually fairly well maintained and sourced. I know you're still living in 2007 and you think you can just edit everything you want but you can't. I'm not saying it's without biases but it is a great reference to use for things and I really don't think people are warring in the editing section over the definition of pay to win.

"The way I looked at it is subjective and not objective, which is what you're doing"

By your words I'm look at it objectively.

ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"

So you're saying I'm just look at the mechanics and calling a spade a spade but you're being subjective

sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Zaketh

"Players that pay monthly sub shouldn’t have to pay $30/skill line to unlock this stuff."

Know what? We don't have to!
We can, and I do, unlock them the old fashioned way...by playing the game!!!
/mind blown

KappaKid83

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

This line right here discredits your claim to not being hell bent on being right. You can change words and use 3rd party quotes but in reality when you use quotes than only support your narrative then are you actually being unbiased or just trying to fit your narrative. Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative.

When did i change words? All my stuff is quoted and I keep copy and pasting stuff from replies. You can't keep repeating that it's not pay to win it's pay to (insert word of the day here) and expect it to hold up. It doesn't especially when you take the line of reasoning and apply it to anything else.

"Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative."

How? I'm consistent with pay to win being pay to win. Fitting things to a narrative is when you take something like pay to win and you have to constantly change the words (pay to short cut, pay for convenience, etc.) to fit the story. Pay to win is pay to win, and that hasn't changed for me.

You can use unsourced quotes from every friend, acquaintance and family member if you want and it will carry the same pertinence as that Wiki article you quoted does. But since you chose to use a "definition" of pay to win from that Wiki that you read that is also unsourced they are the same thing, a subjective opinion of something.

I can go look up the definition of a helicopter in a dictionary but then define it as an airplane, throw it in a Wiki unsourced and have someone call it the correct definition. The way I looked at it is subjective and not objective, which is what you're doing.

Again, hit me with a quote of something I misquoted. I get you think the definition is wrong because it goes against your perceptions of pay to win but like I said, the definition I linked is a 3rd party definition but I've still yet to see anyone prove it wrong. The best you can do is shriek and clutch your pearls and wail "oh WIKIPEDIA" as you gnash your teeth. That is my definition of pay to win and what I'm defending and I HAVEN'T DEVIATED FROM THAT. I wish you could be as consistent but you're too busy dodging and weaving the points, it's not pay to win *dodge* it's pay to go fast. It's not a subjective opinion, it is objective fact. I don't have to keep changing it to my definition of pay to win, cuz it fits this perfectly, too bad you can't say the same.

"I can go look up the definition of a helicopter in a dictionary but then define it as an airplane, throw it in a Wiki unsourced and have someone call it the correct definition."

They have editors for stuff like that genius. I hope you're wearing socks cuz this is going to knock them off but Wikipedia is actually fairly well maintained and sourced. I know you're still living in 2007 and you think you can just edit everything you want but you can't. I'm not saying it's without biases but it is a great reference to use for things and I really don't think people are warring in the editing section over the definition of pay to win.

"The way I looked at it is subjective and not objective, which is what you're doing"

By your words I'm look at it objectively.

ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"

So you're saying I'm just look at the mechanics and calling a spade a spade but you're being subjective

sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I never once said you misquoted anything, I am saying you are using an unsourced quote which in this case is partial opinion and partial facts.

And I understand that Wikipedia is very well moderated, it does not mean that some unsourced quotes are still available for you and I to grab to further our argument. Also, aggressive much.

And those two definitions, you copy and pasted them perfect but since your judgement is so clouded by either rage or self righteousness at this point you can't actually see that what you are doing is the opposite of what you say you are doing.

On that note, enjoy your rage, I am going to enjoy my subway.

Tryxus

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

This line right here discredits your claim to not being hell bent on being right. You can change words and use 3rd party quotes but in reality when you use quotes than only support your narrative then are you actually being unbiased or just trying to fit your narrative. Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative.

When did i change words? All my stuff is quoted and I keep copy and pasting stuff from replies. You can't keep repeating that it's not pay to win it's pay to (insert word of the day here) and expect it to hold up. It doesn't especially when you take the line of reasoning and apply it to anything else.

"Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative."

How? I'm consistent with pay to win being pay to win. Fitting things to a narrative is when you take something like pay to win and you have to constantly change the words (pay to short cut, pay for convenience, etc.) to fit the story. Pay to win is pay to win, and that hasn't changed for me.

You can use unsourced quotes from every friend, acquaintance and family member if you want and it will carry the same pertinence as that Wiki article you quoted does. But since you chose to use a "definition" of pay to win from that Wiki that you read that is also unsourced they are the same thing, a subjective opinion of something.

I can go look up the definition of a helicopter in a dictionary but then define it as an airplane, throw it in a Wiki unsourced and have someone call it the correct definition. The way I looked at it is subjective and not objective, which is what you're doing.

Again, hit me with a quote of something I misquoted. I get you think the definition is wrong because it goes against your perceptions of pay to win but like I said, the definition I linked is a 3rd party definition but I've still yet to see anyone prove it wrong. The best you can do is shriek and clutch your pearls and wail "oh WIKIPEDIA" as you gnash your teeth. That is my definition of pay to win and what I'm defending and I HAVEN'T DEVIATED FROM THAT. I wish you could be as consistent but you're too busy dodging and weaving the points, it's not pay to win *dodge* it's pay to go fast. It's not a subjective opinion, it is objective fact. I don't have to keep changing it to my definition of pay to win, cuz it fits this perfectly, too bad you can't say the same.

"I can go look up the definition of a helicopter in a dictionary but then define it as an airplane, throw it in a Wiki unsourced and have someone call it the correct definition."

They have editors for stuff like that genius. I hope you're wearing socks cuz this is going to knock them off but Wikipedia is actually fairly well maintained and sourced. I know you're still living in 2007 and you think you can just edit everything you want but you can't. I'm not saying it's without biases but it is a great reference to use for things and I really don't think people are warring in the editing section over the definition of pay to win.

"The way I looked at it is subjective and not objective, which is what you're doing"

By your words I'm look at it objectively.

ob·jec·tive
/əbˈjektiv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"

So you're saying I'm just look at the mechanics and calling a spade a spade but you're being subjective

sub·jec·tive
/səbˈjektiv/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Vlad9425

People defending shady micro transactions and stuff like purchasable skill lines are what will make these devs focus more and more on the crown store and less on fixing the actual game.

Reistr_the_Unbroken

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

This line right here discredits your claim to not being hell bent on being right. You can change words and use 3rd party quotes but in reality when you use quotes than only support your narrative then are you actually being unbiased or just trying to fit your narrative. Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative.

When did i change words? All my stuff is quoted and I keep copy and pasting stuff from replies. You can't keep repeating that it's not pay to win it's pay to (insert word of the day here) and expect it to hold up. It doesn't especially when you take the line of reasoning and apply it to anything else.

"Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative."

How? I'm consistent with pay to win being pay to win. Fitting things to a narrative is when you take something like pay to win and you have to constantly change the words (pay to short cut, pay for convenience, etc.) to fit the story. Pay to win is pay to win, and that hasn't changed for me.

You can use unsourced quotes from every friend, acquaintance and family member if you want and it will carry the same pertinence as that Wiki article you quoted does. But since you chose to use a "definition" of pay to win from that Wiki that you read that is also unsourced they are the same thing, a subjective opinion of something.

I can go look up the definition of a helicopter in a dictionary but then define it as an airplane, throw it in a Wiki unsourced and have someone call it the correct definition. The way I looked at it is subjective and not objective, which is what you're doing.

Snipped because dear god this is long

Oh my god just stop already. Didn’t you say you “weren’t getting hellbent over it” or something?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

red_emu

My popcorn came out burnt. Does anyone have some spare?

ZOS_WadeS

Greetings! We have close this thread due to it's unconstructive nature. While we completely understand everyone has their own opinions, thoughts, feelings and even frustrations, we want the forums to be a civil and constructive platform for the game and it's community as a whole.