Trial Twinking, R.I.P.

[Kincaide]

My argument is addressed in my original post as succinctly as I could possibly put it here.

No, actually, what you said in your original post is what you thought the argument should be about. You didn't actually say what your argument was. Unless you're now saying that with all those words, the only thing you're actually asserting is still an argument about what we should be arguing about. Which is too much of a tautology for my blood.

Since I couldn't seem to get you to restate your point, here is the original post that you will spend another post referring to but would not simply repeat yourself:

The argument at hand should revolve around the morality of the decision to take an account to Veteran status. Which, and this is the third time I've said this, is a very unhealthy, unproductive, and inefficient argument.

Now we have to go through the extra step of confirming that this is indeed your argument, because you couldn't just state your argument again and instead necessitated going back and pulling it up for you. Please don't be unnecessarily obstructionist in what is already a very tiring discussion.

 

[Allybeboba]

Each and every patch since 4.0 brings "doom and gloom" for trial twinks.
What we really should be doing is petitioning the developers for a tin foil hat Heirloom to give all brand new level ones to protect them from Blizzard conspiracies.
You people have been wasting a LOT of energy over a name change, a name change... How many threads have been hijacked because of it now? Six? Across three different forums.. Act your age, not your shoe size.

/cheers
Sweetsidney

 

[Kincaide]

Each and every patch since 4.0 brings "doom and gloom" for trial twinks.
What we really should be doing is petitioning the developers for a tin foil hat Heirloom to give all brand new level ones to protect them from Blizzard conspiracies.
You people have been wasting a LOT of energy over a name change, a name change... How many threads have been hijacked because of it now? Six? Across three different forums.. Act your age, not your shoe size.

/cheers
Sweetsidney

We're kind of having an important conversation here and your post is off-topic. Please don't do it again.

 

[Allybeboba]

No, actually, what you said in your original post is what you thought the argument should be about. You didn't actually say what your argument was. Unless you're now saying that with all those words, the only thing you're actually asserting is still an argument about what we should be arguing about. Which is too much of a tautology for my blood.

Since I couldn't seem to get you to restate your point, here is the original post that you will spend another post referring to but would not simply repeat yourself:



Now we have to go through the extra step of confirming that this is indeed your argument, because you couldn't just state your argument again and instead necessitated going back and pulling it up for you. Please don't be unnecessarily obstructionist in what is already a very tiring discussion.

No, we actually have to go through the extra step of a moderator, of all people, perpepuating the hijacking of a thread.
See you all in the field!
Have a good evening.

/cheers
Sweetsidney

 

[Kincaide]

No, we actually have to go through the extra step of a moderator, of all people, perpepuating the hijacking of a thread.
See you all in the field!
Have a good evening.

/cheers
Sweetsidney

Unless your name is Neon or you're a mind-reader, you can't claim that the intent of this thread was anything other than to comment that "F2Ps are dead" thus the original topic of the conversation is whatever the community decided it was, which as I said was done before I entered it and we're still talking about the same thing now. So you're the one who is off-topic, which I've already warned you about once, and if you do it again, not only will you get an infraction for being off-topic but I will also believe that you are deliberately trying to troll me and stir up controversy and that will carry its own consequences. PM me or PM another mod if you have a problem with that, but don't violate the CoC again in this thread.

 

[willix]

Decent argument but a flawed conclusion. My argument, if you read it, was never that Veterans are F2P. My argument was that veterans are NOT P2P, and that a two-mode F2P vs P2P labeling system was inefficient and outdated. I have said this enough times that you can't have just missed it unintentionally.

I haven't read the whole thread, I was responding to your first post on page 2 in which you clearly said the following:

The fallacy of this whole thread is the idea that Veteran accounts are not F2P accounts. If you don't have to pay to play your account, then your account is free to play. You may choose to pay five dollars to get some gear and enchants, but you don't have to pay in order to play your account.

Veteran Edition and Starter Edition accounts are both F2P accounts.

In this post you're quite clearly arguing that Veteran accounts are still F2P accounts. So if you've by some chance changed your position on this matter sometime in the last 10 pages, that's something we can have a discussion about. But don't sit here and treat me like I'm an incapable moron making assumptions about your position without having read your posts. Especially when you're posting gems like this:

I'll just set this mic down here.

This isn't a rap battle or some other contest of egos where you stroll in with your opinions on a simple subject and face plant everyone who disagrees with you.

Then you responded with another gem accusing me of using semantics to bolster my argument... and then do the very thing you accused me of doing. The gaming industry uses clearly defined terms to distinguish between payment models, the most common of which I discussed in this post, which was meant to address both of the responses you made to one of my first posts.

So I'm not sure if you're trolling at this point (which wouldn't surprise me on any level), but your own posts show several inconsistencies you should probably sort out before you bother posting again.

There are three game modes. Subscription currently on, Subscription previously on, and Subscription never on. Call them Mode A, Mode B, and Mode C for all I care, just STOP trying to shoe-horn three modes into two labels. THAT is the core of the problem, whether you're trying to lump B with A, or lump B with C, no matter, both arguments are flawed and miss the point entirely.

Nice straw man you have there? I literally just made a post discussing the different pay modes, the entire point of which was to illustrate how a game can have several different pay modes and be labeled by these clearly defined terms according to the pay modes a player might be discussing. If we're talking about F2P portion of Wow, it's pretty clear we are talking about starter accounts. If we're talking about the P2P portion of Wow, it's pretty clear we are talking about the full game + subscription. If we're talking about the B2P portion of Wow, it's pretty clear we're talking about veteran accounts.

Inventing new terms because you're not satisfied with the old ones doesn't really help anyone. As others have pointed out, the feature isn't even implemented on live servers yet and the distinction has already been clearly understood by players.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to be contrarian.

You're doing my argument a massive injustice by not fully reading it or reasoning it through before responding.

For brevity's sake, I'm not going to quote your post line for line either. Instead, I am informing you that I understand exactly what you're trying to say and I disagree. You want people to lower their standards to the level of the person(s) who has no ability to pay for the full game and obtain the same items as you. You argue that this is not only in the best interests of those people who can't or won't pay for the game, but that everyone else benefits because of it. Worse yet, you argue all this from a position of morality.

The problem here is that your argument completely ignores several facts about Wow and other games that use the F2P model. World of Warcraft (and other F2P games) use the starter account model in order to offer players a method of trying out the game before deciding to buy it. Believe it or not, there are quite a few people who have never played an MMO before, let alone World of Warcraft. The point of offering this 'trial experience' was to get those people into the door without any obligation to buy the game if they ended up not liking it... while offering the ability to continue on their journey and buy the full game + subscription if they did happen to enjoy their time in game.

In essence, everyone who plays on a starter account is intended to either:

1. Quit the game at some point.

2. Buy the full game.

No one was ever intended to continue playing the game in perpetuity and NOT pay for it. That's why there's such heavy restrictions on starter accounts. By continuing to play on a starter account (and make 'twinks') you are tacitly accepting any and all disadvantages/limitations presented by playing on a starter account. If you don't accept those, you can always:

1. Quit.

2. Buy the full game.

So when a player comes along with some inane argument against P2Ps or 29s or whatever the 'problem' is that patch, they are refusing to accept personal responsibility for the choices they've made which resulted in their play experience. They want to blame others for being limited to X items and disadvantaged compared to players who actually pay for the game. The irony becomes the accusations made against players who are actually playing the game the way it was intended to be played (by paying for their accounts and making characters that push the upper limits of what's possible, because that's what twinking actually is), by players who clearly aren't.

Additionally, Blizzard decides what the game rules are. Not players. You don't get to whine about what's 'fair' or 'moral' in a game world where P2Ps are playing by the game rules. Bringing up these points about how 'some players don't have access' is ridiculous. We're talking about a computer based video game. One that requires persistent internet access. If you don't have money to pay $15 a month, how do you afford internet? How do you afford a PC to play on? The problem with this line of logic is that starter accounts aren't intended for people who 'can't afford to pay.' They are intended for the people who can.

If $15 (or whatever amount that converts to in the currency of your country) is too much for you to afford each month, then you have bigger problems than trying to play a video game on a PC. Any argument put forth against paying for the game or players who do pay for the game, is absurd at best. Again, you don't get to make the rules and decide what people should do with their $15 or the game they pay for. If you don't like getting beaten by players who have an advantage over you, don't play. Go get a job and stop making excuses.

Lastly, there's been a long running argument about how 'this bracket exists because of F2Ps.' This is false. The bracket exists because Blizzard decided it would. It existed long before starter accounts were ever implemented. 29s played during Wotlk, Cata, and MoP, despite not having any F2Ps to 'provide games.' In fact, every bracket existed before starter accounts. Once upon a time, everyone paid for the game. Just because there's now a way to play the game in perpetuity without paying for it, does not mean that method of play is superior to any other or should be widely supported by players as a method for twinking. Quite contrary, it should be discouraged by the twinking community specifically because it's not actually twinking and it's a waste of everyone's time. It also kills interest in activity for other brackets, such as 19s, 39s, 49s, 59s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 85s, ect.

A bracket that exists without needing effort to coordinate games is not a twink bracket. That's an XP-on bracket. If you want to whine about the quality of games you're encountering in a twink bracket, you should probably go play XP on games instead. That's the environment where people don't care about min/maxing their toons or being a productive member of a community.

 

[Neon]

the intent of the thread was to tell everybody that trials are not going to be effective enough to be competitive against p2ps and veterans in 6.1

even if you have knowledge of the game, terrain , jumps, no matter how skilled you are, you are not going to have the same kind of fun we had in cata - mop

lets hope they let us exp lock on vets so we can move to a better place like the 19s bracket

if you choose to stay trial in 6.1, have fun not being able to affect any game outcome

 

[Bop]

No, actually, what you said in your original post is what you thought the argument should be about. You didn't actually say what your argument was. Unless you're now saying that with all those words, the only thing you're actually asserting is still an argument about what we should be arguing about. Which is too much of a tautology for my blood.

Since I couldn't seem to get you to restate your point, here is the original post that you will spend another post referring to but would not simply repeat yourself:



Now we have to go through the extra step of confirming that this is indeed your argument, because you couldn't just state your argument again and instead necessitated going back and pulling it up for you. Please don't be unnecessarily obstructionist in what is already a very tiring discussion.

You've spent two posts ignoring my request for you to affirm your argument.

You've spent one post taking a quote of mine out of the context it was originally found.

But you haven't yet acquiesced that my argument was found in the post where I first made my criticisms of your argument - Not in some other random post criticizing the unhealthy nature of this conversation.

As I've said, and as you've noted before, my argument, needlessly abbreviated, is that if even one person is unable to make the swap from F2P to Veteran, then the transition from Starter Edition to Veteran Edition itself is similar to that of from Non-Subbed to Subbed.

Perhaps we should reconvene this discussion to a later time when your patience has returned. I see no reason to do injustice to the arguments because of frustrations.

 

[Neon]

the whole veteran account thing is a good profit idea from blizzards part, it will appeal to all the trials that want to be overpowered but dont have the money to resub every month, they even added the hierloom tab so you can level a 100 to get hierlooms and while you level they hope you will pay for the game and be a regular sub

its a good loop in the system\

and some people will forget to get a BiS item slot on thier twink and have to sub another month so many possibilities with this veteran thing for blizzard to make some profit

 

[Kincaide]

In this post you're quite clearly arguing that Veteran accounts are still F2P accounts. So if you've by some chance changed your position on this matter sometime in the last 10 pages, that's something we can have a discussion about.

Perhaps I have. Perhaps in the course of having to field so many people who don't understand my points, or who want to reiterate their own points without listening to others, I phrased some things in a way that obfuscated my actual intent. It happens, I'm human and I'm not a perfect literary machine and frankly I have a shit-ton of things I should be doing instead of trying to keep this thread sorted out, so accept my apologies, forgive me if you need, and just know that my main point overall has been to argue against the demonization by Bop of those who would go Veteran, and to explain why clinging to our old way of thinking in classifying different accounts doesn't work. The fact that I didn't even get it right myself should just further demonstrate why those terms are meaningless now.

Inventing new terms because you're not satisfied with the old ones doesn't really help anyone. As others have pointed out, the feature isn't even implemented on live servers yet and the distinction has already been clearly understood by players.

But as other others have pointed out, the terms themselves don't work. Someone else already explained why the situation with Veterans makes it different from a B2P account and why that term does not apply. This is also why I don't care what people call it, as long as they understand that the old way of thinking won't work anymore. Hell, the old way of thinking is what gets us into these very arguments we're all in now.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to be contrarian.

I very often find myself feeling the same way about most things most people post in arguments here. That feeling is legitimate for me if it's legitimate for you. But now that I've restated it in this post, do you feel like you understand better now what my point is?

the intent of the thread was to tell everybody that trials are not going to be effective enough to be competitive against p2ps and veterans in 6.1

even if you have knowledge of the game, terrain , jumps, no matter how skilled you are, you are not going to have the same kind of fun we had in cata - mop

lets hope they let us exp lock on vets so we can move to a better place like the 19s bracket

if you choose to stay trial in 6.1, have fun not being able to affect any game outcome

Listen, Neon, this is your thread. So I'll defer to you. What do you want this thread to be about from here out?

 

[Bop]

In essence, everyone who plays on a starter account is intended to either:

1. Quit the game at some point.

2. Buy the full game.

Let me stop you there, because you make no consequential point in the next 6 paragraphs, which, as it happens, I read word for word. The exercise was almost tear-jerking. Not because I don't like reading long posts, obviously I would be a hypocrite if I posted arguments but didn't read those of others.

As it happens, your argument is that Trials should have a disadvantage by the very fact that they are Starter Editions.

The reason why, thankfully, I get to write off the entirety of your argument without having to respond to it - which admittedly, would be a draining exercise - is because it is completely irrelevant to the argument here today.

You're arguing about the existence of a F2P community, which is an entirely different argument altogether. I have no reason to address it because it is off-topic, nor would I want to.

It's a silly argument. We have a community, we intend to maintain the community. Kincaide and I disagree on the effects of a recent change on the F2P population here on TI, but we both agree that we should act in the best interests of this community.

You are in effect saying "Get used to it."

-Yawn-

 

[Neon]

just quit arguing about whether veteran accounts are f2p or p2p

if you want to argue about something argue about the viability of pure f2ps in bgs in the 20-29 bracket

argue about whether or not it is a good idea to make a veteran account in the 19s bracket

give some reasons why you will stay pure f2p, Rhaellia understood this thread pretty good

really everyone always misunderstands me i feel like people think i speak another language, and hijack my thread with whatever misconcieved idea



this is not the first time people have tooken advantage of my threads, if you look at my post history you will see it has been happening for a while

 

[Srs]

I think what Bop is saying is that if we all go vet, we all become no better than the 24s or 29s that used to be the enemy, with the jajas being the only one in the morally superior position. I'm not sure that I can disagree, though it's going to be hard to get people to stay pure as long as ex-24s pollute the bracket as 29s.

Now you may or may not agree with Kant, but when you're talking about ethics, that is, what is or what is not moral, that is his bailiwick. I'd like to go back to the Categorical Imperitive, which is:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Ok to unpack that, a "maxim" is a rule for one's actions. Often you'd see this in the formula "One should _____", or "One should not". In this case of veteran accounts, our maxims would be, "One should upgrade", and "One should not upgrade". Then you think about it, and contemplate the consequences if everyone did the same thing. What would happen if everyone upgraded? What would happen if no one upgraded?

If no one upgraded and stayed at 20, then we'd have the status quo, and we'd remain in the morally superior underdog status, yet facing the prospect of increasing unviability in BGs. Though, we could still have events and stuff. The 29s would have plenty of fodder to troll, and their population would probably continue to increase. This universal law is not likely to ever happen because as long as there are true f2ps in the f2p bracket, there will be scumbags there to troll them. And you're never going to get the 29s to roll f2ps.

If everyone upgraded and stayed at 20, then there would be 29s, and vet 20, and jajas. Notice I said, and jajas because I'm not including jajas in "everyone" because jajas and true trials won't all upgrade. Therefore, this option cannot ever really become universal for 20s. I think think the only way you'll ever have a fair playing field is if everyone, or no one upgrades, and it's like 100% that neither will happen. So, in this last scenario you'll have vets in a more viable, but crutching on enchants relative to the jajas (who will remain in the hip underdog spot).

Now, I've just gone and made a false dichotomy of my own, such is life, but I do think there is a third way. Assuming that we can go 19s, What if we all we all went 19s and torpedo the bracket? If we all go, we can all play in bracket where everyone has the opportunity to be on equal footing. Something that we will never have in the 20-29 bracket.

Plus we can all laugh as the 29s née 24s will have to choose to play on an even playing field and lose terribly, or play jajas all day and further become the laughing stock of all that is twinking.





edit: big up to the jajas, who are about to inherit f2p OG status in 6.1.

 

[Kincaide]

just quit arguing about whether veteran accounts are f2p or p2p

if you want to argue about something argue about the viability of pure f2ps in bgs in the 20-29 bracket

argue about whether or not it is a good idea to make a veteran account in the 19s bracket

give some reasons why you will stay pure f2p, Rhaellia understood this thread pretty good

really everyone always misunderstands me i feel like people think i speak another language, and hijack my thread with whatever misconcieved idea



this is not the first time people have tooken advantage of my threads, if you look at my post history you will see it has been happening for a while

Understood and accepted, and now that you've stated your wishes clearly and no one has to guess or interpret them, let's all endeavor to respect that.

 

[Srs]

lets hope they let us exp lock on vets so we can move to a better place like the 19s bracket

Hey, look at that, I was like the only one on-topic. Bans for the rest of you. trolololol.

 

[Neon]

Hey, look at that, I was like the only one on-topic. Bans for the rest of you. trolololol.

you are very bannable though why not you?

sorry offtopic

 

[Achmed]

the whole veteran account thing is a good profit idea from blizzards part, it will appeal to all the trials that want to be overpowered but dont have the money to resub every month, they even added the hierloom tab so you can level a 100 to get hierlooms and while you level they hope you will pay for the game and be a regular sub

its a good loop in the system\

and some people will forget to get a BiS item slot on thier twink and have to sub another month so many possibilities with this veteran thing for blizzard to make some profit

This was brilliant idea from Blizzard. Win-Win situation.

PS: there is a gold heirlooms vendor now for the old justice/honor looms. I wonder what would those(actual pure f2p) paying to veteran do to aquire them all. Lvlup chars and start farming gold?

 

[willix]

But now that I've restated it in this post, do you feel like you understand better now what my point is?

After reading your most recent post, I can indeed confirm that I understand what your point is, which is to say that I've always understood it and it really hasn't changed much. I accept that you've abandoned your original argument and shifted your thinking to encompass whether or not players can understand the terms being used within the contexts players are using them. This reminds me of a discussion I once had with other players about continuing to use the word 'twink' to reference what we are and the things we do. At the time, the consensus was against my opinion on discontinuing the use of that term, for no other reason than people were attached to in and comfortable using it.

My opposition simply didn't see the problem of using that term. I brought up many points about the term 'twink' which painted it as a ill-fitting derogatory term that only confuses people we talk to about twinking. I also argued that the term itself becomes an instant turn off for potential new recruits into the community, making it difficult to even sustain numbers, let alone grow. I insisted we adopt the term 'experience disabled' instead of 'twinks' but no one really cared enough to take it seriously. Fast forward years later and people are still using the ever derogatory term 'twink' as a self descriptor.

However, your argument doesn't really follow, except to explain that you don't like the terms we already have. I don't see a reason to change the terms since they are industry-wide and pretty self explanatory. 'Buy to play' simply means a purchase is required to access the game (or a part of it). 'Pay to play' means that continued payment is required to access the game (or part of it). 'Free to play' means that no purchase is required to access the game (or part of it). Your argument suffers from a lack of community support. You're the only person I see trying to create new terms.

Let me stop you there, because you make no consequential point in the next 6 paragraphs, which, as it happens, I read word for word. The exercise was almost tear-jerking. Not because I don't like reading long posts, obviously I would be a hypocrite if I posted arguments but didn't read those of others.

As it happens, your argument is that Trials should have a disadvantage by the very fact that they are Starter Editions.

The reason why, thankfully, I get to write off the entirety of your argument without having to respond to it - which admittedly, would be a draining exercise - is because it is completely irrelevant to the argument here today.

You're arguing about the existence of a F2P community, which is an entirely different argument altogether. I have no reason to address it because it is off-topic, nor would I want to.

It's a silly argument. We have a community, we intend to maintain the community. Kincaide and I disagree on the effects of a recent change on the F2P population here on TI, but we both agree that we should act in the best interests of this community.

You are in effect saying "Get used to it."

-Yawn-

Incorrect. I'm not saying 'get used to it.' I'm saying the game is not designed to be played in the way you're playing it. That the difficulties you experience in pvp are proof of that, and you should probably get with the program and pay for the game if you want things to get better. You are in control of your play experience, and if you're making choices that lead to being trounced in pvp, you should probably accept responsibility for those choices and work to rectify them. Making excuses for not paying for the game is hilarious considering the costs involved just to be able to play the game for free.

It's like buying a brand new car and then refusing to get oil changes. Of all the expenses incurred by having a PC, power, and internet, you would think $15 is a small price to pay to actually enjoy the game you're making such a big deal about. And your bit about 'community?' That's even funnier. The twinking community as a whole has existed since Vanilla Wow., long before there were ever starter accounts. I find it impossible to believe that 'starter accounts' are in any way responsible for the 'community' you're speaking of. Rather, the twinking community shifted to playing starter accounts because of how easy it was to get games going where you steamrolled new players who had no idea what was going on.

When the 'F2P community' became a problem, Blizzard put you into XP off games with actual twinks because of how disruptive you were to new players. Since then, they haven't come up with a good solution to the problem you present, writing off new players completely. So as you can imagine, the shit eventually rolled down hill and landed in this bracket, creating what you call a 'community.' Something which has simultaneously grown in numbers AND depleted any drive for activity in other brackets.

So call it what you want to, those of us who have been around for a long time know the difference and we know better.

 

[Bop]

After reading your most recent post, I can indeed confirm that I understand what your point is, which is to say that I've always understood it and it really hasn't changed much. I accept that you've abandoned your original argument and shifted your thinking to encompass whether or not players can understand the terms being used within the contexts players are using them. This reminds me of a discussion I once had with other players about continuing to use the word 'twink' to reference what we are and the things we do. At the time, the consensus was against my opinion on discontinuing the use of that term, for no other reason than people were attached to in and comfortable using it.

My opposition simply didn't see the problem of using that term. I brought up many points about the term 'twink' which painted it as a ill-fitting derogatory term that only confuses people we talk to about twinking. I also argued that the term itself becomes an instant turn off for potential new recruits into the community, making it difficult to even sustain numbers, let alone grow. I insisted we adopt the term 'experience disabled' instead of 'twinks' but no one really cared enough to take it seriously. Fast forward years later and people are still using the ever derogatory term 'twink' as a self descriptor.

However, your argument doesn't really follow, except to explain that you don't like the terms we already have. I don't see a reason to change the terms since they are industry-wide and pretty self explanatory. 'Buy to play' simply means a purchase is required to access the game (or a part of it). 'Pay to play' means that continued payment is required to access the game (or part of it). 'Free to play' means that no purchase is required to access the game (or part of it). Your argument suffers from a lack of community support. You're the only person I see trying to create new terms.



Incorrect. I'm not saying 'get used to it.' I'm saying the game is not designed to be played in the way you're playing it. That the difficulties you experience in pvp are proof of that, and you should probably get with the program and pay for the game if you want things to get better. You are in control of your play experience, and if you're making choices that lead to being trounced in pvp, you should probably accept responsibility for those choices and work to rectify them. Making excuses for not paying for the game is hilarious considering the costs involved just to be able to play the game for free.

It's like buying a brand new car and then refusing to get oil changes. Of all the expenses incurred by having a PC, power, and internet, you would think $15 is a small price to pay to actually enjoy the game you're making such a big deal about. And your bit about 'community?' That's even funnier. The twinking community as a whole has existed since Vanilla Wow., long before there were ever starter accounts. I find it impossible to believe that 'starter accounts' are in any way responsible for the 'community' you're speaking of. Rather, the twinking community shifted to playing starter accounts because of how easy it was to get games going where you steamrolled new players who had no idea what was going on.

When the 'F2P community' became a problem, Blizzard put you into XP off games with actual twinks because of how disruptive you were to new players. Since then, they haven't come up with a good solution to the problem you present, writing off new players completely. So as you can imagine, the shit eventually rolled down hill and landed in this bracket, creating what you call a 'community.' Something which has simultaneously grown in numbers AND depleted any drive for activity in other brackets.

So call it what you want to, those of us who have been around for a long time know the difference and we know better.

First, I'd like to say that everything you've said so far is completely and utterly irrelevant. That's not what we're talking about. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not what Kincaide is talking about.

In no way have you referenced or are you attempting to reference anything that is being discussed in this forum.

On top of that, your chosen rant is a weak argument. It comes from your point of view and fails to analyze the motives for others to avoid paying for this game. It's an argument that I've had countless times with countless people, and it all ends the same.

Even if the post wasn't a total pile of horse excrement, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone so out of touch with this forum that they will insist upon making a pointless series of posts.

 

[Mesikämmen]

Hory shet this has escalated