mindlessflight (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mindlessflight) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
anonrerising2024-10-08 11:48 am
mindlessflight) wrote in anonrerising2024-10-08 11:48 am
if she didn't butt in, no one would know they mean her outside of drama blogs. she only got called out by name because she was trolling. people know better than to name her and she ain't worth losing an account over
ayrt
I'm not trolling. I do genuinely think that this is a massive overreaction.
Scalping is a thing that happens in real life with real money and real necessities and is harmful.
This is a retired pixel item on a browser game. An item that, for the record, I think should be unretired. But no one should be punished for increasing a price on a Pixel Dragon Game. You are applying your emotions from the real life scenario to a fake game scenario. The fact that Elisabluh is being targeted so much when the real actual problem is just the fact that light sprites are retired in the first place is honestly baffling. But I guess it's easier to talk about the subject when you can point fingers right
I'm not trolling. I do genuinely think that this is a massive overreaction.
Scalping is a thing that happens in real life with real money and real necessities and is harmful.
This is a retired pixel item on a browser game. An item that, for the record, I think should be unretired. But no one should be punished for increasing a price on a Pixel Dragon Game. You are applying your emotions from the real life scenario to a fake game scenario. The fact that Elisabluh is being targeted so much when the real actual problem is just the fact that light sprites are retired in the first place is honestly baffling. But I guess it's easier to talk about the subject when you can point fingers right
ayrt
nope I am not, I do not even know her nor do I intend to. And to be clear, I don't think it's bad to mention the fact that it's her doing, in a Neutral Manner. However players tend to not stay neutral about it. Pretty much every time I see light sprite threads and this is brought up, at least one rando will get mad about it and say it should be bannable.
nope I am not, I do not even know her nor do I intend to. And to be clear, I don't think it's bad to mention the fact that it's her doing, in a Neutral Manner. However players tend to not stay neutral about it. Pretty much every time I see light sprite threads and this is brought up, at least one rando will get mad about it and say it should be bannable.
There is a rational reason for it though? It makes the game less fun for people. The item collecting game of petsites is extremely common and having a handful of people intentionally make certain items extremely difficult to obtain for no reason ruins the fun. People who make the game less fun for others should get some repercussions.
AYRT
People ask for it to be bannable because it's a common rule on a lot of games with player economies. Not just with pet sims.
I think it's weird you keep acting like people being "emotional" about something is bad. People are allowed to have feelings, sometimes even strong feelings when someone is going out of their way to make an aspect of the game less fun, and actively rub it in that they're getting away with it.
It's weird you're acting so high and mighty as if you haven't been responding to everyone here and trying to defend someone like Elisabluh of all players.
People ask for it to be bannable because it's a common rule on a lot of games with player economies. Not just with pet sims.
I think it's weird you keep acting like people being "emotional" about something is bad. People are allowed to have feelings, sometimes even strong feelings when someone is going out of their way to make an aspect of the game less fun, and actively rub it in that they're getting away with it.
It's weird you're acting so high and mighty as if you haven't been responding to everyone here and trying to defend someone like Elisabluh of all players.
If she didn't want to be part of FR history, she should have made smarter choices. It's that simple.
I'm not sure what you get out of coming here with a contrarian attitude to defend someone who you fundamentally disagree with in terms of keeping the sprites retired. Attention? Playing hero to act like some "sage voice of reason," who is somehow magically smarter about handling the situation than the people who've witnessed it unfold firsthand? Stop while you're ahead.
I'm not sure what you get out of coming here with a contrarian attitude to defend someone who you fundamentally disagree with in terms of keeping the sprites retired. Attention? Playing hero to act like some "sage voice of reason," who is somehow magically smarter about handling the situation than the people who've witnessed it unfold firsthand? Stop while you're ahead.
ayrt
no no I actually agree with majority of what you said. To clarify once more: I think she's being annoying and not doing herself any favours. In fact, her behaviour is quite toxic and bordering on trolling which, according to rules, is unacceptable. So if anything were to catch her a warning or ban, it should be this, but from what I understand a lot of it is happening off-site, so staff may not be able to take action as easily. However I also feel like a lot of people are taking that (unconfirmed) bait and going overboard with it themselves, acting like Elisabluh is some kind of malicious lightsprites-hoarding entity that needs to be forcibly removed from the site for crimes against the userbase.
Re-releasing the sprites in some fashion would be the best way of dealing with this. No one user is singled out and punished over a mistake that was ultimately originally made by staff. Everyone benefits in the end.
I still don't know which games by the way, other than neopets which is a known clusterfuck. It sounds unreasonable to me, but I don't know these games and their economies and player numbers. If you got examples I'd be curious to see
no no I actually agree with majority of what you said. To clarify once more: I think she's being annoying and not doing herself any favours. In fact, her behaviour is quite toxic and bordering on trolling which, according to rules, is unacceptable. So if anything were to catch her a warning or ban, it should be this, but from what I understand a lot of it is happening off-site, so staff may not be able to take action as easily. However I also feel like a lot of people are taking that (unconfirmed) bait and going overboard with it themselves, acting like Elisabluh is some kind of malicious lightsprites-hoarding entity that needs to be forcibly removed from the site for crimes against the userbase.
Re-releasing the sprites in some fashion would be the best way of dealing with this. No one user is singled out and punished over a mistake that was ultimately originally made by staff. Everyone benefits in the end.
I still don't know which games by the way, other than neopets which is a known clusterfuck. It sounds unreasonable to me, but I don't know these games and their economies and player numbers. If you got examples I'd be curious to see
ayrt
you do realize that the concept of "an item that is difficult to obtain" is decided entirely by the staff of the game right. They set rarities. They decide if something is limited or not. If they end up having to go on and BAN people for inflating the price of an item that THEY THEMSELVES decided to limit, it's a failure on their part. Pet game staff should not limit items if they're not ready to accept that players will play with the prices. Just don't limit them; or unlimit them later on if you realize you don't like the outcome.
If staff starts banning people for inflating retired item prices, it essentially means they are using a scenario they themselves caused to punish people. That is equally unfun, if not more so.
you do realize that the concept of "an item that is difficult to obtain" is decided entirely by the staff of the game right. They set rarities. They decide if something is limited or not. If they end up having to go on and BAN people for inflating the price of an item that THEY THEMSELVES decided to limit, it's a failure on their part. Pet game staff should not limit items if they're not ready to accept that players will play with the prices. Just don't limit them; or unlimit them later on if you realize you don't like the outcome.
If staff starts banning people for inflating retired item prices, it essentially means they are using a scenario they themselves caused to punish people. That is equally unfun, if not more so.
lol
>Talking about emotions while replying to every single anon.
LMAO even.
You are here just to fuck around right?
>Talking about emotions while replying to every single anon.
LMAO even.
You are here just to fuck around right?
ayrt
I can disagree with her and think her attitude is annoying while also understanding that this isn't some site-ending problem where staff needs to step in and start issuing bans. Disagreeing with someone and not liking them doesn't mean I have to also condemn them. But I guess this is the internet where we condemn people over inconsequential crap so you're right. I have better things to do with my monday
I can disagree with her and think her attitude is annoying while also understanding that this isn't some site-ending problem where staff needs to step in and start issuing bans. Disagreeing with someone and not liking them doesn't mean I have to also condemn them. But I guess this is the internet where we condemn people over inconsequential crap so you're right. I have better things to do with my monday
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If people don't want to get shit on or banned for intentionally hoarding retired items only to make themselves over three times the normal amount, they shouldn't do it. It's really not that hard. Beginning to think that you must also have a vested interest in the light sprite economy or some other retired item you're hoping to inflate. Nothing else can explain how obtuse you are in not understanding what people are mad about and asking staff to help prevent.
ayrt
yea yea the "you must be exactly like the person you're defending" argument, whatever helps you sleep.
I simply don't agree with the scenario that the staff of a pet game should get to release a limited item, and then ban players who try to benefit from the fact that it's limited, whether or not those players are insufferable pricks. Staff should not get to exert their control in such ways. They control item rarities which is good and fine, but the moment they start policing player market activity like that is where they've failed.
yea yea the "you must be exactly like the person you're defending" argument, whatever helps you sleep.
I simply don't agree with the scenario that the staff of a pet game should get to release a limited item, and then ban players who try to benefit from the fact that it's limited, whether or not those players are insufferable pricks. Staff should not get to exert their control in such ways. They control item rarities which is good and fine, but the moment they start policing player market activity like that is where they've failed.
ayrt
It's so crazy you don't see the difference between:
a. Retired items will naturally be more expensive depending on multiple factors. Rarity, popularity etc. Players will sell these items at naturally higher rates and these rates will increase as years go by and more players hold on to these retired items. People will also naturally rediscover FR, sell their retired items, or may decide to transition away from FR and sell their retired items.
and
b. A single player looks at the healthy market of a retired item, steadily increasing over the years. They buy huge amounts of this item and reset the market price to three times the previous amount. They refuse to sell the item for less than their new rate, and continue to buy any listings that are below theirs.
Now not only are fewer sprites being traded, a large portion of them are controlled by a single person. The price cannot naturally fluctuate as there are less sellers in the market, and people are unwilling to pay the new x3 price. This market is effectively dead because *one* person has such huge control.
Allowing that behavior does not make for a fun or healthy game. You keep saying you have no idea of games that have rules against this, so maybe you should stay in your lane. There are clearly multiple anons here that have experienced this type of behavior ruining games and recognize this behavior as something that should be cracked down on.
It's so crazy you don't see the difference between:
a. Retired items will naturally be more expensive depending on multiple factors. Rarity, popularity etc. Players will sell these items at naturally higher rates and these rates will increase as years go by and more players hold on to these retired items. People will also naturally rediscover FR, sell their retired items, or may decide to transition away from FR and sell their retired items.
and
b. A single player looks at the healthy market of a retired item, steadily increasing over the years. They buy huge amounts of this item and reset the market price to three times the previous amount. They refuse to sell the item for less than their new rate, and continue to buy any listings that are below theirs.
Now not only are fewer sprites being traded, a large portion of them are controlled by a single person. The price cannot naturally fluctuate as there are less sellers in the market, and people are unwilling to pay the new x3 price. This market is effectively dead because *one* person has such huge control.
Allowing that behavior does not make for a fun or healthy game. You keep saying you have no idea of games that have rules against this, so maybe you should stay in your lane. There are clearly multiple anons here that have experienced this type of behavior ruining games and recognize this behavior as something that should be cracked down on.
Thank you for putting it better than I ever could LOL
DA, See the way you're replying to people doesn't help your case any more than Elisabluh replying to every goddamn instance someone brings up a light sprite or y1 items in jox.
If you think that someone should be able to hoard something, act like a prick, and then never face consequences, that's on you my friend. I disagree that it would be a failure for staff to rerelease an item to curb the market skyrocketing in price. The current price is already out of control and people wanting this item to be put in a jox box will probably not make it any less valuable or desirable, it would just make it a sliver of a chance for people to pull one. Take the luminous halo for example, those bitches are still expensive and are in jox. It will just give players more hope that they too can someday own one if they get lucky. Currently new players have very little hope to ever own such an item unless they save religiously for it. I understand that isn't a terrible thing, saving in games teaches patience and is something people need to learn in the real world as well. What I have a problem with is saving what is hundreds of dollars worth of gems for 1 item that someone decided to hoard and purposefully increased the market price of. Then said person acts all high and mighty and clueless about it at the same time. And lastly, they shame people who try to haggle with them so tell me that something shouldn't be done about this situation by staff themselves and I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
If you think that someone should be able to hoard something, act like a prick, and then never face consequences, that's on you my friend. I disagree that it would be a failure for staff to rerelease an item to curb the market skyrocketing in price. The current price is already out of control and people wanting this item to be put in a jox box will probably not make it any less valuable or desirable, it would just make it a sliver of a chance for people to pull one. Take the luminous halo for example, those bitches are still expensive and are in jox. It will just give players more hope that they too can someday own one if they get lucky. Currently new players have very little hope to ever own such an item unless they save religiously for it. I understand that isn't a terrible thing, saving in games teaches patience and is something people need to learn in the real world as well. What I have a problem with is saving what is hundreds of dollars worth of gems for 1 item that someone decided to hoard and purposefully increased the market price of. Then said person acts all high and mighty and clueless about it at the same time. And lastly, they shame people who try to haggle with them so tell me that something shouldn't be done about this situation by staff themselves and I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
I honestly do think it is Elisabluh, in spite of claims otherwise. Because the responding to every anon feeels so her behavior. And claiming they want it unretired is a great way to try to misdirect.
Don't bother replying to me, as you aren't changing my view, and every post just cements it.
Don't bother replying to me, as you aren't changing my view, and every post just cements it.
ayrt
weird for you to assume that I can't see the difference? I'm defending both scenarios. I'm defending scenario B because that kind of thing can't happen unless there's an opportunity for it. And that kind of opportunity can only ever be created through staff choices.
What does "healthy market" even mean here? What does "natural" mean?? Does a market that's controlled by bans sound natural to you? Has the light sprite market ever looked healthy to anyone, even before Elisabluh?? This scenario is enabled by the sprite being retired, desirable and in extremely low supply. That decision was made by staff; they retired it despite the low player numbers and too many server issues back when it was available. The fact that one user can even do this without much competition just speaks loudly of the sheer, alarming shortage of light sprites in comparison to how many people want them. Even if Elisabluh suddenly listed all their sprites at 70kg each, the core issue would remain.
And at this point I'm genuinely begging you to name any game. Neopets is one, okay cool! Anything else? I genuinely want to know and hear about how their economies and playerbases are faring with these rules and bans. I want to hear your stories about artificial inflation ruining games. Please tell me I am desperate.
weird for you to assume that I can't see the difference? I'm defending both scenarios. I'm defending scenario B because that kind of thing can't happen unless there's an opportunity for it. And that kind of opportunity can only ever be created through staff choices.
What does "healthy market" even mean here? What does "natural" mean?? Does a market that's controlled by bans sound natural to you? Has the light sprite market ever looked healthy to anyone, even before Elisabluh?? This scenario is enabled by the sprite being retired, desirable and in extremely low supply. That decision was made by staff; they retired it despite the low player numbers and too many server issues back when it was available. The fact that one user can even do this without much competition just speaks loudly of the sheer, alarming shortage of light sprites in comparison to how many people want them. Even if Elisabluh suddenly listed all their sprites at 70kg each, the core issue would remain.
And at this point I'm genuinely begging you to name any game. Neopets is one, okay cool! Anything else? I genuinely want to know and hear about how their economies and playerbases are faring with these rules and bans. I want to hear your stories about artificial inflation ruining games. Please tell me I am desperate.
you've really got the same tone as elisabluh lol, if you're not her this is wild.
It is their game. Your "staff should not get to exert control of their game" claim is kind of ridiculous. By that, it could be argued that having rules against anything is a failing.
DA - You really just keep coming back and acting just like Elisabluh, do you think you posting is doing anything? Do you think coming on here and being a knight in shining armor for a scumbag will get you any points with anyone? What is your purpose other than acting like the person in question and being obtuse? Genuinely cannot understand why you'd come here to a salt space and then complain about complaints (I mean what do you expect in a drama space for a pet site? cmon, be real) and then say people are feeling way too vitriol about the whole thing? People are allowed to complain. You clearly have no intention of having a discussion or intend to try to see things from other points of view even though you keep asking for it.
My advice is just stop replying, you are making things worse for yourself and honestly I find it hard to believe you aren't EB even if you say it 100x that you're not.
My advice is just stop replying, you are making things worse for yourself and honestly I find it hard to believe you aren't EB even if you say it 100x that you're not.
If she did that, the market would be reset to what it was before she started, and it would be a reasonable goal again. You could save for it over time and not start saving just to see the price rose 50k gems when you get to your goal.
A normal retired item goes up and down with demand. Not up only like light sprites. The core of this problem isn't retired items. It's how a player is acting with those items.
Look at all other retired items. Even kickstarter ones rise and have fallen to lack of demand. There are likely less of those left after years of bans and kickstarter players choosing to go inactive with them.
A normal retired item goes up and down with demand. Not up only like light sprites. The core of this problem isn't retired items. It's how a player is acting with those items.
Look at all other retired items. Even kickstarter ones rise and have fallen to lack of demand. There are likely less of those left after years of bans and kickstarter players choosing to go inactive with them.
ayrt
"I'm defending scenario B because that kind of thing can't happen unless there's an opportunity for it."
You're so close!!!!
That's why people want rules against it. Then that opportunity can no longer happen! <3 It's like saying that you can't make rules against bullying people on site without it being staff's fault for allowing people to communicate in the first place. You have some interesting brainrot for not being Elisabluh.
"I'm defending scenario B because that kind of thing can't happen unless there's an opportunity for it."
You're so close!!!!
That's why people want rules against it. Then that opportunity can no longer happen! <3 It's like saying that you can't make rules against bullying people on site without it being staff's fault for allowing people to communicate in the first place. You have some interesting brainrot for not being Elisabluh.
ayrt
you seem committed to misunderstanding me but alright. I'll say it again. I Don't Think It's Good To Have A Price-Controlling Rule On A Player-Run Economy That Gets Players Banned. ESPECIALLY since there is a much better, less hostile solution right in front of us: Simply Re-Release The Light Sprite and other retired festival items. No one has to get banned, no one has to feel powerless when looking at extremely inflated prices. Why you wouldn't want the more peaceful option is beyond me but something tells me that this isn't so much about the light sprite itself as it is about wanting to see Elisabluh kicked off the site for your entertainment.
you seem committed to misunderstanding me but alright. I'll say it again. I Don't Think It's Good To Have A Price-Controlling Rule On A Player-Run Economy That Gets Players Banned. ESPECIALLY since there is a much better, less hostile solution right in front of us: Simply Re-Release The Light Sprite and other retired festival items. No one has to get banned, no one has to feel powerless when looking at extremely inflated prices. Why you wouldn't want the more peaceful option is beyond me but something tells me that this isn't so much about the light sprite itself as it is about wanting to see Elisabluh kicked off the site for your entertainment.
Why am I getting libertarian vibes from this
da, LMAO I love your reply. Honestly agree with everything you've said thus far, you explain things that I can't quite put into words
Page 10 of 72