StarGateWars Forums

Actually Clarkey's post is right.

Deposit successful. You deposited 233,755,428 at the cost of 21,234,428.

Thats how the code used to be.. For all but Goa'uld race and ascended.

Then it got taken away completely and the tax slot, turned into a mirror of what you deposited.

Kikaz wrote:Actually Clarkey's post is right.

Deposit successful. You deposited 233,755,428 at the cost of 21,234,428.

Thats how the code used to be.. For all but Goa'uld race and ascended.

Then it got taken away completely and the tax slot, turned into a mirror of what you deposited.

I know how it used to be, and yes it now mirrors.

And clarkey is still wrong, if you look at what he said that it needed 0 naq to deposit. Thats what I told him that he is wrong, but it wont accept that you need naq to deposit any amount of naq.

Eärendil wrote:http://talk.gatewa.rs/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=188196&p=2389460#p2389460

Forum wrote:the simple fact that this topic exists indicates that the message could have been worded better.
done.

Deposit successful. You deposited 161,996,175,827.

While a very adequate reaction, the argument strikes me as interesting. I will leave it at that.
Good, that doesn't really settle the question though, since it moved away from the game and into the domain of the dreaded Grammar Nazis.

I haz no naqs to deposit

Clarkey: You deposited X naquadah, which took <tax> to do so.
You deposited $500, which took $3.50 to do so.
You deposited $500, which took $0 to do so.

Rudy: You deposited X naquadah, which took <naquadah + tax> to do so.
You deposited $500, which took $503.50 to do so.
You deposited $500, which took $500 to do so.

Given the examples and the evidence from ingame, Clarkey is right.

Haz wrote:Clarkey: You deposited X naquadah, which took <tax> to do so.
You deposited $500, which took $3.50 to do so.
You deposited $500, which took $0 to do so.

Rudy: You deposited X naquadah, which took <naquadah + tax> to do so.
You deposited $500, which took $503.50 to do so.
You deposited $500, which took $500 to do so.

Given the examples and the evidence from ingame, Clarkey is right.

You have it wrong.

I never stated that you don't need naq to deposit naq. Rudy if you were even willing to understand what I was saying you would admit that I was saying that it takes 0 tax to deposit naq. You are either not grasping what I was saying which would make you look pretty stupid as I said it clear enough several times, or you are ignoring what I was saying because you are so intent on failing to make me look stupid myself. And the reason I was saying that was because it was my belief that the statement was this:

You deposited [the naq you wanted to deposit], which took [this amount of tax] to do so. Then the remainder was deposited in your bank.

As people have said this changed when the tax bit changed.

And the fact that Jason has now changed the wording of that sentence goes to show that the person that created this thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=188196 did some good and got something changed, no matter how small or ineffective it was.

So I think we can end it there now and close this thread.

P.S. If you withdraw £500 from a cash machine and there is a fee of £3.50 you are charged £3.50 and not £503.50. Duh!

Clarkey wrote:I never stated that you don't need naq to deposit naq. Rudy if you were even willing to understand what I was saying you would admit that I was saying that it takes 0 tax to deposit naq. You are either not grasping what I was saying which would make you look pretty stupid as I said it clear enough several times, or you are ignoring what I was saying because you are so intent on failing to make me look stupid myself. And the reason I was saying that was because it was my belief that the statement was this:

You deposited [the naq you wanted to deposit], which took [this amount of tax] to do so. Then the remainder was deposited in your bank.

As people have said this changed when the tax bit changed.

And the fact that Jason has now changed the wording of that sentence goes to show that the person that created this thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=188196 did some good and got something changed, no matter how small or ineffective it was.

So I think we can end it there now and close this thread.

P.S. If you withdraw £500 from a cash machine and there is a fee of £3.50 you are charged £3.50 and not £503.50. Duh!

How many times will you change your story.

Your very first post that you replied to mines... You said 0 naq was needed to deposit the 2bil naq. Thats when I said you were wrong and that you needed naq in order to deposit any naq.

But you are too much of a stuck up ass to admit you were wrong about it.

Like I told you, Go to your bank and try to deposit 500 pounds with 0 pounds....they will laugh at you. In order to deposit 500, you need 500. So you deposited 500 pounds, which took 500 pounds to do.

ok, why not just remove the tax/fee thing altogether and be done with argument.. it only effects certain unaccended accounts anyway.. and those accounts are probably the ones that can least afford to be paying a fee...just saying

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:ok, why not just remove the tax/fee thing altogether and be done with argument.. it only effects certain unaccended accounts anyway.. and those accounts are probably the ones that can least afford to be paying a fee...just saying

Did you read what i said that Jason has now done? That is the end of it.

Back in the day banking took a percentage of the naq deposited and that message is what remains of that function.