Ccp response needed. whats being done to lower plex prices

[Ima_Wreckyou]

This sale was pretty clever, as it created demand to get PLEX for $ from CCP do to it being cheaper, but also to sink PLEX for omega time because you only needed 425 PLEX for a month. This created demand on both sides and I think this is why the price was pretty stable.

[Anderson_Geten]

Can ccp track the origin of a plex ?
Especially now that their number is multiplied by 500, can CCP still record the origin and the transactions related to each plex ?

[Sindara_T_Soni]

@Salvos_Rhoska

Yes, but unless CCP answers my question of if they are sourced from confiscated PLEX in the affirmative, it means the myth of all PLEX being paid for is false.

I had a very wise University tutor who used to say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

I note that many of the fundamental building blocks of your argument rely on the opposite. Just saying.

[Ramona_McCandless]

Because arguing a minor point of order without meaningful impact on the question at hand is what some people enjoy doing I guess.

[Aergri_Evingod]

@Matthias_Ancaladron

its doubled in the last few months since the poorly made decision to break plex up.

i spoke out against it then saying it would skyrocket and go above 4m and its well on its way.
i was told i didnt know what i was talking about and what statistics i had to back up my claims.
looks like i was right all along so now whats being done ccp to lower plex back down to 2m/1b where it was stable.

Could it be that when it comes to PLEX CCP is currently observing the market and probed it out with the lower price sale for some time? Another assumption that appeals to me is that CCP might see fungibility or convertibiltiy as a “ethical” value of PLEX.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Anderson_Geten

Can ccp track the origin of a plex ?
Especially now that their number is multiplied by 500, can CCP still record the origin and the transactions related to each plex ?

I dont know.
I would expect each PLEX has a unique ID that can be tracked as to transactions related to it. This because CCP needs to keep an eye on PLEX, especially as related to RMT.

I dont know if those IDs cover the history of PLEX introduced before the fragmentation.

We also dont know how CCP stores confiscated PLEX, whether as actual PLEX held somewhere, or only as a number on a book-keeping ledger. We dont know where/how/when they might re-introduce them into the player market.

[Ramona_McCandless]

That could be seen as somewhat aggressive

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Sindara_T_Soni

I had a very wise University tutor who used to say “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

The shape/content of a missing piece in a puzzle/equation can be deduced from what surrounds it.

None of my arguments claim absence of evidence, as evidence of absence.
I merely work with what we know.

We know, that we dont know if CCP uses confiscated PLEX to source Buddy/Discovery/Reward/Event PLEX.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Aergri_Evingod

Could it be that when it comes to PLEX CCP is currently observing the market and probed it out with the lower price sale for some time?

Granulating PLEX invariably led to increase in demand, as (particularly isk poor) people buy them up piece-meal, as they earn isk, rather than in one lump after accruing enough to buy it.

Considering the continuing increase in PLEX value in isk, it is wise to buy PLEX off the market every time you have some spare isk and notice a “cheap” PLEX for sale.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Ramona_McCandless

That could be seen as somewhat aggressive

Its not “somewhat aggressive”.
Its clearly against forum rules.

[Ramona_McCandless]

As is Anderson’s post so why single Aaron out?

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Ramona_McCandless

As is Anderson’s post so why single Aaron out?

False equivalency. Two different actions by two different acters.
You also did not single Aaron out.

If Anderson did broke forum rules, it doesnt justify Aaron also breaking forum rules.

You “liked” someones post which clearly breaks forum rules.
You endorsed it. That’s on you.

[Ramona_McCandless]

I agree but I didnt comment on the forum legality of either at all.

But I do agree with Aaron; using that kind of language in a publically accessible forum does make a person what he described them as.

But yes they are both breaking the rules.

@Salvos_Rhoska

You “liked” someones post which clearly breaks forum rules.

You must be high lol

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Ramona_McCandless

But yes they are both breaking the rules.

And yet you liked Aarons post which clearly breaks forum rules.

[Ramona_McCandless]

Best flag my post then bub.

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Ramona_McCandless

You must be high lol

Your like of Aaron’s post, which does nothing except insult an other poster, breaking the rules, is still there.

I’m not imagining it. You did that.

[Ramona_McCandless]

Yup and thats not against the rules of the forum. His post and the other are.

So if I flag Aaron’s post, will you go on about that ad nausium too?

[Salvos_Rhoska]

@Ramona_McCandless

Yup and thats not against the rules of the forum. His post and the other are.

So if I flag Aaron’s post, will you go on about that ad nausium too?

I didnt say your “Like” was against forum rules, but it shows you endorse forum breaking behavior, on a self-serving, partial basis.

And yet you had the gall to claim I didnt repudiate Anderson, or “singled out” Aaron.
I didnt “Like” either of them. You did, but only one of them.

[Ramona_McCandless]

I only like one of them because the other used offensive language.

And yeah you did say it, but its ok, you got your grammar wrong. I see what you meant to say now and I apologise for not being able to understand you.

Its all these PLEX under the bed, they make it hard to hear what you are saying sometimes.

Both of them are now flagged, so thats the end of that isnt it?

[Sindara_T_Soni]

@Salvos_Rhoska

None of my arguments claim absence of evidence, as evidence of absence.

You did just that in the very comment I posted those words of wisdom in reply to.

You claimed absence of evidence to the contrary (CCP not replying to you) ‘means the myth of all PLEX being paid for is false’. It means no such thing.

The absence of evidence against you is not evidence that you are correct.