anonrerising | Night of the Nocturne!

AYRT well... you did ask.

-Hibden space isn't maxed out
-Severe lack of high value festival/gem apparel items exclusive from prior to their account creation date
-Lack of easily attainable gem MP apparel featured in planned outfits, cumulatively costing less than their low digit dragons
-Very few low digit dragons that are split between gifts and purchased, none above 10kg
-Limited auction history showing they prefer one on one bidding and has no practice with bidding amounts upwards of thousands of gems
-No UMAs + the few site skins featured could have all been obtained through regular gameplay

I've got no issue with people splurging money on a dragon, but this whole incident points to being a one time occurrence for Toxxitone, not a regular one.

If you're just contesting my definition of 'whale', then sure. I was using it very liberally in reference to them since they themselves stated they hadn't spent money on FR up until that point. It still doesn't change my original argument that words straight from the horse's mouth should instantly overrule whatever assumptions you might've made about them based on their account, bio, etc, especially in the realm of public discussion.

AYRT I'm getting older and associate whaling much more heavily with chasing prestige/keeping up with a chaotic metagame. The point is, Toxxitone has no idea how much the dragons they were going for were worth and artificially inflated an auction well past a hypothetical autobuy.

And just because someone makes a claim, doesn't mean it's always true. We can't verify anyone's bank account ffs. The chance they were being serious is about as much as the chance as they were completely bullshitting everyone else involved.

Both sides were very well aware they're inflating the dragon's worth by the tenfolds. OP themselves pointed it out earlier in the thread.

I find the idea of a person needing to 'verify' their bank balance before they're allowed to mention spending RL currency without endless scrutiny and condescension from other users frankly ridiculous. Even if they are lying, which is an insulting assumption to make with zero evidence, it's none of an internet stranger's goddamn business to get to the bottom of it unless the spender is concurrently posting about their family starving to death as they throw thousands of $$$ at pngs cool-looking numbers or something. Which is not happening, so just call them a dick for flexing their wealth like that and leave them alone.

ayrt At this point I can't help but think you're acting deliberately disingenuous. The concept of "we can't verify, so we can't be sure," seems to be lost on you. It wasn't any deeper than that.

Hope your day's as nice as you are. I'm out.

And I could say you seem to have deliberately misinterpreted my post if your takeaway from it is that "we can", if that's the route you want to take. I didn't think this would need to be said, but no of course we can't ever be sure about anything about random strangers we've never talked to from the other side of the globe. This is precisely why I took issue with Strawberry deciding they know Tox's finances better than Tox does and taking the moral high ground of "protecting" them based on this nonexistent information and their own biases, assuming you're still the same anon who called their reaction normal and sensible.

Night of the Nocturne!

(frozen comment) Re: 100x777 argument

(frozen comment) Re: 100x777 argument

(frozen comment) Re: 100x777 argument

(frozen comment) Re: 100x777 argument

(frozen comment) Re: 100x777 argument

(frozen comment) Re: 100x777 argument