Jack wrote:MaxSterling wrote:Semper,
Your whole argument is based on your definition of cheating and how you perceive it. Not everyone views it the same way. To me, cheating would involve someone going against the game rules or exploiting an option not available or known to everyone else in the game.
To cheat is to gain an unfair advantage, no matter how you try to twist it, that is what you're doing when you spend copious sums of money buying an advantage in this game.
"Cheating in video games involves a player of a video game creating an advantage beyond the bounds of normal gameplay"
To cheat is to gain an unfair advantage from within the confides of the rules given. (The bouns of normal gameplay is another way of saying rules if your not a human theosauraus)
You cant just go ignoring the definition, and say things like "no matter how you try to twist it" in its place, lol!!!
For an Example on what your saying.
If In chess you added a new rule, meaning the the queen can jump over pieces, *as too why you would wasnt to do this and ruin a nice game of chess I dont know
* but if you did, and it was agreed upon by the game rule maker and then accepted by the compeitors as all rules are before playing any game. If you were to jump said queen over said other piece, where normally this would be cheating as a queen by the rules of normal chess can't, it is no longer cheating, by your definition you can argue that it is cheating because it is unfair, the queen is now stronger than usual and thus gainsan unfair advantage to a player who doesnt use it this way, but you would be wrong, cheating is only cheating if it is cheating as defined if defined correctly.
Fact is, buying stuff with $ is not cheating, nor is scamming, nor is extortion, nor are many other things inside the game people seem to deem a "cheat."
If the rules say said action is permissable, it is not cheating, it may well be unfair/immoral/cruel/harsh/inconciderate/a huge mistake on part of the admin, it is still in no way shape how or form cheating. You cant simply ignore the definition of a word and say something is it, when it is clearly not. And dont even think of throwing around idea's like "tear has 2 meanings, and try to use this with definitions of cheating", cheat has a few definitions, this is true.
This is one of them.
cheat - darnel: weedy annual grass often occurs in grainfields and other cultivated land; seeds sometimes considered poisonous.
But having the language skills to choose the right definition for the right purpose is key in any point in any confosation. In this case, we are talking about rules and the breaking of rules by cheating to gain unfair advantages, and you are saying this is the case with buying for $, English langauge says you sir's are wrong, I strongly suggest you use whichever right term applies to your arguements before I hit you with the blimey dictionary.
Confusing and misleading langauge using incorrect definitions is either the work of comic genious's or dislexics.
To sum up, buying naq with $ is not cheating in any way shape or form.
....
Death_Glider wrote:
Let me break it down, a game needs a player base, the game cannot progress or sustain itself unless its player base grows. Games will fail if they cannot sustain a growing player base.
How does this relate to the above. Player A doesn't want to start from scratch, so he buys an account from Player B who is tired of the admin not caring about his or her input and wants to leave with enough for a Happy Meal or whatever(no $ goes to the game). Player A then goes around picking on smaller accounts just because he can, accounts that have been worked on from scratch and have either asceneded or donated to the game to get where they were.
Player A picks on the wrong person (Player C), a War then starts, Player A is quickly overwhelmed by actual skill, so then they proceed to purchase accounts for their "friends" and purchasing goods from other players with $$(again no $ goes to the game). Player C and his Alliance are quickly overwhelmed by numbers and decide to call it quits because no matter how much effort is put in, Player A has the advantage and with that, the husk of a once geat account floats aimlessly in space with no owner (1 account lost) and soon his or her friends decided the same (loss of more accounts to the void).
Congratulations, your player base has shrunken because of player A. Before you call bull on this example ... I was Player C, and have been gone for almost two years. Why am I back, because I miss communicating with my bud and he stopped playing wow, so i use this to chat with him at work and BS.
The admin really needs to re-think things before this games turns into an embarrassment rather than a legacy.
Best,
Death Glider (DG)
You need to re-think your arguement.
Player A sold to player B. (1 Account saved instead of "blackholed")
Player B introduces Players D, E and F to the game to fight pro player, infamous yet unamed C. (3 new accounts to the game)
Player C, being the infamous pro he is, destroys and makes quit B, D, E and F, quite an achievement, he truely had lived up to his nameless name. (4 accounts lost to the blackhole.
Conclusion;
There is no change to the player base than if Player A had blackholed as apposed to sell.
................................................................................
The reason why you cant fault, or atleast fault correctly Max's arguement is simple, $ trading doesnt hurt the game, all naqudah / uu / turns, are distributed back into the game when sold. As apposed to the opposite which is accounts containing lots of resources deleting or vac'ing which takes resources away from the total player bases resources.
The fact that the distribution of these resources goes to the players who pay the most $ is irrelevant, less resources are being destroyed or held permentally in black holes thanks to the $ trading of SGW. So if anything, $ Buying/Selling from player to player helps the game not to be stagant and resources to simply, disapear.
.........
.........
..........
And to the guy who said this thread was started buy a whiny $ buyer.
1. I dont buy stuff with $.
2. I dont whine.
Infact this thread was created about whiny anti - $ trader's. So infact you have got it all wrong.
If anything I am a whiny anti - anti - $ trader's. But even then I would argue about the whiny part. I do not whine, merely comment upon in such frequency it appears that I never stop.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
you have his ear! that would explain why he's not listening to any of the suggeestions 
, So while you may not have agreed with it, by playing you accepted it. 
