I was expecting the "are you elisabluh" response lmao. No, I'm not here to impersonate her. I never even said I like her or anything. I agree that she's being annoying and should stop poking the hornet's nest.
But I stand by my point. This is indeed a golden fairy thing on a pixel game. It's perfectly fine and understandable to feel frustrated about its inflated price, but to start calling for rules to suddenly make certain ways of selling *a pixel item you own fair and square* a bannable offense is such an extreme overreaction. It doesn't matter if said item is very popular and desirable. And the harassment she's facing is no better (I'd argue it's even worse) than what she's doing. This isn't AstralCrescent who goes around attacking people for existing. This is someone who's playing with fake numbers.
I don't get why whenever an item is priced in a way someone doesn't like (applies to undercutting as well), there are always genuine calls for staff to do something and comparisons to irl scalping scenarios. This is a game. Calm the fuck down?
> but to start calling for rules to suddenly make certain ways of selling *a pixel item you own fair and square* a bannable offense is such an extreme overreaction.
why?
are you willfully ignoring that people are calling for this to be a bannable offense because this person is INTENTIONALLY manipulating the market for their own benefit? this is not something that happens naturally as the amount of a limited item increases. it's normal for a retired item to increase in price over the years, but the light sprite SPECFICICALLY has been incredibly inflated because of 1-2 people cornering the market.
buying up all cheaper sprites and then only selling for 180kg+ (and acting like a shithole when people try to ask for a slightly more reasonable price), should be a bannable offense. it should be a bannable offense regardless of the item involved.
if you are trying to ARTIFICALLY inflate the worth of an item so you can sell it for more, yes. you should be banned. like i said, there is no way to accidentally do this. it is intentional.
you are being willfully obtuse if you don't see how this is genuinely unusual gameplay that should not be encouraged. this has nothing to do with undercutting or people trying to sell things for more than they're worth (in a one off situation) and is not even close.
oops meant to say "as the amount of a limited item decreases"
i should specify that this is something FR staff should make rules about because they have an extremely stable economy, and letting people get away with shit like this is exactly why the neopets economy turned to poop. people started making groups where they would buy up all of certain stamps (and other items), and then only sell them for incredibly inflated amounts. people had no choice but to buy from them as a lot of these items were retired.
this is not behavior that you should encourage or allow if you want a healthy game economy to exist.
You only want it to be a bannable offense because you're mad about it and dislike the user responsible. There's no rational reason for it. There's no rational reason whatsoever for staff to start controlling the market with bans. Bringing back light sprites? Yeah, that would work, and the entire playerbase including me would be very happy about it!
It happens again and again, someone plays the market, it results in prices players don't like, and because they can't accept that reality, they start calling for staff to PUNISH the people who do it. You do realize how entitled that sounds right. You can complain about player-set prices without condemning the players themselves, oh my god.
you really seem to lack any amount of reading comprehension, so it's really not worth it to repeat what i've already said multiple times. continue to suckle from the teat, i'm sure it'll do you well.
This reply is really obtuse and is purposely ignoring the main problem here.
It can be argued that being upset or mad about player's prices for things like eliminates and the like, stuff that is hard to obtain but there's always the chance to get yourself. That to be mad about it is eye-roll worthy.
Is something completely different to try and apply that line of thinking to Retired things that have a limited number for obvyreasons, you can say "but these are put in site raffles" and that's right! But the numbers don't increase to demand (and there's the chance that a multi can be caught winning half of them, making them lost anyway).
To get your hands on the whole stock of retired items, to sell them THREE times its current price, then act coy about it, is indistinguishable from scalping.
Or I am overthinking and all of this is just to troll/fuck with the players.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This mentality is why monopolies IRL who defraud millions of Americans with price gouging haven't had their CEOs rightfully locked up. Chipotle and Krogers C-Suite has been found literally saying they jack up prices bc they can. Price-fixing is fraud period, FR and IRL, and ahem "white-collar crime" not being viewed the same or even worse as mugging someone or cursing people out in public settings is why shit sucks sm today. You have fallen for the Big PharmaFoodTech propaganda and are now applying your broken logic to pixel game
I mean we live in the real world, idk why you think it's forbidden to make irl comparisons. Making comparisons between games and things we know and live through is a perfectly healthy and normal way to deal with things ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
uhh not really? companies irl exploit people who are struggling and dying and have little choice other than to pay the inflated prices of necessities. in a dragon browser game that is Not Happening and Will Never Happen. A petsite player overpricing a funny animal picture is not comparable to the CEO of fucking Chipotle
ayrt There are different levels to things, pretty sure no one is saying that what Elisabluh did is the same as some rich af CEO being corrupt. They are drawing comparisons from patterns of behavior and real world definitions to show you that what Elisabluh did is not morally right by both pet site and irl standards. That is a healthy and normal comparison to make. People compare things all the time even if THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Do you read that? NOT THE SAME. It's just a comparison. There are parallels but we understand they ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!!
NO ONE IS SAYING ELISABLU IS EXPLOITING DYING PEOPLE. You are twisting words to make people out to be bad for drawing comparisons with real world scenarios.
You say that the people here are overreacting but you are definitely the one taking this too seriously LMAO, I won't be entertaining your nonsense any further so good luck everyone else!
well the comparison kinda falls apart if there's no actual meaning or purpose to it. why even bring attention to irl CEOs if you're not trying to draw a parallel there? Just to say they are comparable, for the sake of it? to achieve what exactly?
I mean CEOs are a hot topic all over the world right now for the sheer damage they're doing. Imo they should not be brought into a convo about a dragon pet game user lightly. But you did that. For no reason then I guess. Well ok?
ayrt I am not the original anon who drew the comparison so no I am not the one who drew the parallel but I literally just said it's fine to draw parallels in things that are not the same. Do you understand? I will say it again because you clearly cannot read, NOT THE SAME. Do you read? I am saying they draw these comparisons to show how morally wrong Elisabluh's choices are, not that she's out there exploiting millions and killing babies or some shit
DO MY WORDS REACH YOU?
It honestly feels like you didn't even read what I wrote the first time. Waste of time :p
(1) I compared Chipotle/Kroger to say that white collar crime should be taken seriously, causes more harm than AC whining("being mean in public" statement) in terms of en masse player welfare. Hurts less but to way more people, utilitarian blahblahblah. Thesis statement was "taken Big XYZ propaganda and applied your broken logic to pixel game".
(2) I am using the other examples to prove that TS is enacting a monopoly. Agree that inhalers/food are more important. But honestly this is the same level as the ticketmaster stuff except with RLC, concerts and Light Sprites are both "for fun" that's being ruined by one bad actor. Even if you disagree woth the Ticketmaster thing tho, my main point was to draw IRL comparisons to prove TS is monopolizing, since apparently your dumb ass thinks that the only way a monopoly can happen is my one entity owning every item in existence. Which is wrong and a very elementary worldview
![[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
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 12:49 pm (UTC)(link)I was expecting the "are you elisabluh" response lmao. No, I'm not here to impersonate her. I never even said I like her or anything. I agree that she's being annoying and should stop poking the hornet's nest.
But I stand by my point. This is indeed a golden fairy thing on a pixel game. It's perfectly fine and understandable to feel frustrated about its inflated price, but to start calling for rules to suddenly make certain ways of selling *a pixel item you own fair and square* a bannable offense is such an extreme overreaction. It doesn't matter if said item is very popular and desirable. And the harassment she's facing is no better (I'd argue it's even worse) than what she's doing. This isn't AstralCrescent who goes around attacking people for existing. This is someone who's playing with fake numbers.
I don't get why whenever an item is priced in a way someone doesn't like (applies to undercutting as well), there are always genuine calls for staff to do something and comparisons to irl scalping scenarios. This is a game. Calm the fuck down?
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 12:59 pm (UTC)(link)> but to start calling for rules to suddenly make certain ways of selling *a pixel item you own fair and square* a bannable offense is such an extreme overreaction.
why?
are you willfully ignoring that people are calling for this to be a bannable offense because this person is INTENTIONALLY manipulating the market for their own benefit? this is not something that happens naturally as the amount of a limited item increases. it's normal for a retired item to increase in price over the years, but the light sprite SPECFICICALLY has been incredibly inflated because of 1-2 people cornering the market.
buying up all cheaper sprites and then only selling for 180kg+ (and acting like a shithole when people try to ask for a slightly more reasonable price), should be a bannable offense. it should be a bannable offense regardless of the item involved.
if you are trying to ARTIFICALLY inflate the worth of an item so you can sell it for more, yes. you should be banned. like i said, there is no way to accidentally do this. it is intentional.
you are being willfully obtuse if you don't see how this is genuinely unusual gameplay that should not be encouraged. this has nothing to do with undercutting or people trying to sell things for more than they're worth (in a one off situation) and is not even close.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 01:04 pm (UTC)(link)oops meant to say "as the amount of a limited item decreases"
i should specify that this is something FR staff should make rules about because they have an extremely stable economy, and letting people get away with shit like this is exactly why the neopets economy turned to poop. people started making groups where they would buy up all of certain stamps (and other items), and then only sell them for incredibly inflated amounts. people had no choice but to buy from them as a lot of these items were retired.
this is not behavior that you should encourage or allow if you want a healthy game economy to exist.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 01:15 pm (UTC)(link)You only want it to be a bannable offense because you're mad about it and dislike the user responsible. There's no rational reason for it. There's no rational reason whatsoever for staff to start controlling the market with bans. Bringing back light sprites? Yeah, that would work, and the entire playerbase including me would be very happy about it!
It happens again and again, someone plays the market, it results in prices players don't like, and because they can't accept that reality, they start calling for staff to PUNISH the people who do it. You do realize how entitled that sounds right. You can complain about player-set prices without condemning the players themselves, oh my god.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 01:18 pm (UTC)(link)you really seem to lack any amount of reading comprehension, so it's really not worth it to repeat what i've already said multiple times. continue to suckle from the teat, i'm sure it'll do you well.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 01:53 pm (UTC)(link)It can be argued that being upset or mad about player's prices for things like eliminates and the like, stuff that is hard to obtain but there's always the chance to get yourself. That to be mad about it is eye-roll worthy.
Is something completely different to try and apply that line of thinking to Retired things that have a limited number for obvyreasons, you can say "but these are put in site raffles" and that's right! But the numbers don't increase to demand (and there's the chance that a multi can be caught winning half of them, making them lost anyway).
To get your hands on the whole stock of retired items, to sell them THREE times its current price, then act coy about it, is indistinguishable from scalping.
Or I am overthinking and all of this is just to troll/fuck with the players.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 02:03 pm (UTC)(link)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
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 02:32 pm (UTC)(link)>Talking about emotions while replying to every single anon.
LMAO even.
You are here just to fuck around right?
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 03:38 pm (UTC)(link)Don't bother replying to me, as you aren't changing my view, and every post just cements it.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 02:10 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 02:32 pm (UTC)(link)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.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 02:41 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 02:48 pm (UTC)(link)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.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 02:55 pm (UTC)(link)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.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 14:58 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 15:50 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 15:52 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:00 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:04 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:06 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:13 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:18 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:20 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:22 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:27 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:43 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:53 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:21 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:26 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:29 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 18:16 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:14 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:14 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:19 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:21 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:29 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 16:31 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 17:15 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 17:07 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 17:52 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 03:01 pm (UTC)(link)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.
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 03:54 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 05:19 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 05:35 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 05:42 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 05:45 pm (UTC)(link)(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 06:06 pm (UTC)(link)uhh not really? companies irl exploit people who are struggling and dying and have little choice other than to pay the inflated prices of necessities. in a dragon browser game that is Not Happening and Will Never Happen. A petsite player overpricing a funny animal picture is not comparable to the CEO of fucking Chipotle
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 06:18 pm (UTC)(link)NO ONE IS SAYING ELISABLU IS EXPLOITING DYING PEOPLE. You are twisting words to make people out to be bad for drawing comparisons with real world scenarios.
You say that the people here are overreacting but you are definitely the one taking this too seriously LMAO, I won't be entertaining your nonsense any further so good luck everyone else!
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 06:27 pm (UTC)(link)well the comparison kinda falls apart if there's no actual meaning or purpose to it. why even bring attention to irl CEOs if you're not trying to draw a parallel there? Just to say they are comparable, for the sake of it? to achieve what exactly?
I mean CEOs are a hot topic all over the world right now for the sheer damage they're doing. Imo they should not be brought into a convo about a dragon pet game user lightly. But you did that. For no reason then I guess. Well ok?
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 06:32 pm (UTC)(link)DO MY WORDS REACH YOU?
It honestly feels like you didn't even read what I wrote the first time. Waste of time :p
(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 18:35 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 18:36 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 19:38 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) - 2024-10-14 18:36 (UTC) - Expand(frozen comment) Re: Elisabluh
(Anonymous) 2024-10-14 07:02 pm (UTC)(link)(1) I compared Chipotle/Kroger to say that white collar crime should be taken seriously, causes more harm than AC whining("being mean in public" statement) in terms of en masse player welfare. Hurts less but to way more people, utilitarian blahblahblah. Thesis statement was "taken Big XYZ propaganda and applied your broken logic to pixel game".
(2) I am using the other examples to prove that TS is enacting a monopoly. Agree that inhalers/food are more important. But honestly this is the same level as the ticketmaster stuff except with RLC, concerts and Light Sprites are both "for fun" that's being ruined by one bad actor. Even if you disagree woth the Ticketmaster thing tho, my main point was to draw IRL comparisons to prove TS is monopolizing, since apparently your dumb ass thinks that the only way a monopoly can happen is my one entity owning every item in existence. Which is wrong and a very elementary worldview