Palonabanana
Legend
+1
Who's still pure?
- Thread starter Activate
- Start date
- Status
Agnostic
Grandfathered
Well my question is, are they wanting to remain f2p to be rebellious? Or simply they don't feel the need to pay?
The people who don't feel the need to pay to have fun are fine. That's what f2p should be. That or just testing out the game.
But the people who are hell-bent on being pure due to "moral" reasons rather than financial is why there are so many attacks on p2p and vets.
Last edited by a moderator:
AlbinoCow
Vaco Del Blanco
[MENTION=8138]Kincaide[/MENTION] , Correct me if im wrong but the past protocol was to either give warnings or infracntions if serious enough. I, personally, would be pissed off if I made a thread to start community conversation and then see it get locked because 2-3 ppl took it offtopic into something I deemed it not. There are 3 different tags, and all tags with different views of the games, and they are all on the same forum section. OF FUCKING COURSE THERE IS GONNA BE DISPUTES, that is probably the most obvious result of merging the ideologies in this bracket. To lock threads because of a couple participants going off topic is stupid.
This thread was made to see who is still playing pure f2ps, which is a way of playing this game, the same as a veteran or subbed. Because (once again) a few ppl take a stance that is aggressive the whole thread spirals. The same thing happens with aggressive 29s. Which is why with separated forums, there would be much less dispute as was discussed a month ago or whenever. These threads won't stop, Look at the first whole page of this thread, many happy pure f2ps talk about their experiences and the thread topic without dispute or downing any other ideology in this bracket. HOWEVER, u came with ur comment that spurred more problems as well as other ppl who have always been known to spur controversy. Literally the first 3-4 pages are full of ppl in the pure f2p community talking with each other with happiness and no hatred towards anything else except for ur comments along 2-3 others.
This thread was made to see who is still playing pure f2ps, which is a way of playing this game, the same as a veteran or subbed. Because (once again) a few ppl take a stance that is aggressive the whole thread spirals. The same thing happens with aggressive 29s. Which is why with separated forums, there would be much less dispute as was discussed a month ago or whenever. These threads won't stop, Look at the first whole page of this thread, many happy pure f2ps talk about their experiences and the thread topic without dispute or downing any other ideology in this bracket. HOWEVER, u came with ur comment that spurred more problems as well as other ppl who have always been known to spur controversy. Literally the first 3-4 pages are full of ppl in the pure f2p community talking with each other with happiness and no hatred towards anything else except for ur comments along 2-3 others.
Kincaide
Legend
Relax yourself. The other thread, the conversation had died -and- it had gone off topic -and- it had a more controversial tone than this one. I know my job. If you don't like how I do it, I welcome you to PM Shane, really. Shane loves feedback.
This thread went off the rails (though by a lesser degree) because of the use of the word "pure". Take any Communications class and you'll learn the difference between Intent and Impact. It is the impact of the words we use that matters, not the intent. If you use a term innocently but other people take offense to it, that is your responsibility to correct, not theirs to deal with. Implying (intentionally or not) that people are "impure" because they choose to play a different way is asking for trouble; it's asking for people to take issue with the post and the thread. You have to be willing to take responsibility for the impact your words have on others.
Indeed, I literally just got through processing a report that was filed on this very thread, because there was a player among you all, who was new to Twinking and new to this forum, who was so dismayed and appalled by what he perceived as being the "level of immaturity and elitist attitudes here" because of the "purity" argument, that he decided to leave the forums. Now, one could respond by saying "Well he should learn to have a thick skin and not be so sensitive" but that is putting the responsibility for the impact of those words on the listener rather than the speaker. That is, to use the modern parlance, blaming the victim.
Words have impact. That's the bottom line. No one has been aggressive towards Starter players; the community perceives that the Starter players are being aggressive towards anyone who has decided to not play Starter anymore. And I'm telling you now, that's going to stop. From this point on if I see anything that I deem to be belittling someone else for what account type they are playing, I'm going to edit the post at a minimum, and give an infraction at the most. Mark my words, all of you: Drop the word "pure" from your lexicon right now. I've put up with it enough. This is not your soapbox to rail against other players who choose a different playstyle.
If you want to speak in terms of distinction between account types, use the terms Starter, Veteran, and Subscriber. If you want to start a thread asking who is still playing unlinked Starters, then call them unlinked Starters. If anyone calls them "pure", or calls them "real" implying others are fake, then I'm going to have an issue with that.
That's my decision on this; if you don't like it, please PM Broken or Shane.
Agnostic
Grandfathered
[MENTION=18878]AlbinoCow[/MENTION]
The fact that the OP even mentioned grouping implies conflict.
Yes he IS right. Grouping is perfectly within capability of an unlinked f2p account given the fact that a p2p was willing enough to lend a hand. It does fall under the "pure rules".
But why must there be rules to such a degree? Why must someone, given the scenario grouping wasn't catagorized as pure, not be allowed to recieve help from a friend to obtain something that is perfectly obtainable within restrictions?
Morality has corrupted the definition of twinking.
Edit: you are a respectful person. But you need to realize that you are standing for a group of people who think in a very different perspective than you. People who won't think twice about labeling other twinks.
The fact that the OP even mentioned grouping implies conflict.
Yes he IS right. Grouping is perfectly within capability of an unlinked f2p account given the fact that a p2p was willing enough to lend a hand. It does fall under the "pure rules".
But why must there be rules to such a degree? Why must someone, given the scenario grouping wasn't catagorized as pure, not be allowed to recieve help from a friend to obtain something that is perfectly obtainable within restrictions?
Morality has corrupted the definition of twinking.
Edit: you are a respectful person. But you need to realize that you are standing for a group of people who think in a very different perspective than you. People who won't think twice about labeling other twinks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bop
Remember the Treeline
You have no right to dictate the way a subset of players considers and speaks of other subsets.
Your authority extends only as far as the CoC, which has nothing in it about giving infractions over vocabulary choices that you do not personally prefer.
As long as no individual is flaming another individual, but rather one subset of players is criticizing another subset of players, then the CoC has not been broken.
Kincaide
Legend
Please don't tell me my job. You see that section I just quoted? I wrote it. I already said that we got a report that someone left the community over how insulted they felt by being called impure.
You absolutely do not have the right to criticize another subset of players for playing the game differently from you. If you think you do, then by all means, get Shane involved in the discussion. Here, I'll even tag him for you: [MENTION=5141]Shane[/MENTION] There, now do you want to work with me and the limits I set on how insulting people can be towards each other, or would you rather work with him? I'll give you a hint: I am a hell of a lot more forgiving. So you do what you feel you must, but I've made my ruling clear on insulting other members for what account type they have.
AlbinoCow
Vaco Del Blanco
What term would u suggest we use to refer to what was previously "pure"? "un-benefited" ? With the gameplay it refers to compared to the rest of the bracket, it think its quiet warranted. Many ppl talk about vanilla wow and how it was more pure and challenging to do everything in it. This is the same idea, it is attune to playing a 60 vanilla restricted twink (where they don't use any gear / chants tbc and further). Why can't ppl take pride in that?
Agnostic
Grandfathered
I think they refer to them as vanilla twinks more so than pure.
Gazmitron
Grandfathered
Classic Starter sounds good to me. Are you still "Classic"? Originality of being a starter is there, without the "Pure."
IMO, or there is alway Muggle :0)
Dorigon
Alpha and Omega
To be honest, I don't know what terminology would be best, but "pure" is so potentially troublesome because the inverse (impure) has a very negative connotation. I would recommend terminology that isn't so positive/negative in how it's perceived. "Pure" is even a good term, but it becomes a problem when it is sometimes used in a combative or condescending manner.
Last edited by a moderator:
Klinda
Legend
Why not "Starter" or "Unlinked?" I think those two are good ways of referring to non-vets,and unlinked without being condescending or having underlying tones.
Digitaldreams
Legend
I don't think most people who use the word pure intend to upset or offend others, they are mostly (not all though) innocently thinking of it in a descriptive way... Unlinked with no monetry input. It does indeed have a negative connotation though. If you are not pure you are dirty or marred which is a bad thing and can come off as a "superior" attitude. We were told a newbie to the forum left over it which could have been avoided if we had more thoughtful terminology.
I do believe that is the right decision to curb making other players feel unwelcome or guilty about how they play and I don't see any issue about calling it unlinked trial accounts or whatever the agreed term instead,if it offends one less person then that is surely good.
I do believe that is the right decision to curb making other players feel unwelcome or guilty about how they play and I don't see any issue about calling it unlinked trial accounts or whatever the agreed term instead,if it offends one less person then that is surely good.
Dorigon
Alpha and Omega
I agree with those being the best terms. They are objective and to the point. The problems arise when people try to apply further subjective levels of "purity" to themselves, such as having not grouped with high levels etc.
- Status