I don’t remember any tears. What is it you feel you can’t say? Because name calling and threatening to kill someone are very different things.
It’s real funny how you can’t give any meaning to anything you say, and only reply with name calling, it’s just like being back in the 3rd form.
WTF?
It’s clear that your purpose here is just to call names and derail the thread so that no changes are made to AFK, AFK cloaks, or other problems in the game. So, each time you do so, I’ll point out what you’re doing, and see if we can get back to the topic.
So, did you want to try to make a case for how someone at work and not looking at their computer is “playing” the game? (Before doing so, you should check the ELUA for ideas about how CCP defines “playing the game.”
Nullbears like yourself have been crying about AFK cloaking for well over a decade and CCP has done absolutely nothing about it because it just isn’t an issue. I know you’re not the smartest cookie, so let me tell you that this thread serves only the single purpose of keeping the rest of the forums free of nullbear whining about AFK cloaking. It’s a trashcan thread and nothing more.
I’ll let you read what I wrote and posted about 20 more times, then you might actually understand it.
I’m not a nullbear. Everything I have suggested anywhere on the forums is anti-nullbear, I just don’t happen to agree that AFK cloaking is the right way to deal with nullbear farmers. You really haven’t been paying attention, have you?
Of course it is, why do you think I come in here to play with the trash? But we’ll have to play later, real life calls, and I’ve already had too much fun laughing at your expense. Maybe there were tears, tears of laughter and joy.
To what exactly? Your illiterate gibberish that is devoid of logic and reason?
You want me to laugh now? You’re so hard on “I want to discuss AFK” and after being pointed out as the moron that you are you fall back to “I’m just here to play with the trash”, and then you discredit yourself in the very same post.
Value and price are not the same thing. The concept is what lies behind the idea of consumer surplus. Example suppose we have a good people usually buy 1 of, say a dishwasher. And that the price is $300. Bob may value a dishwasher such that he’d still buy it at $400 (but not $401). Since the price is $300, Bob enjoys $100 in “consumer surplus”. George might value it at $300 so he too buys one, but gets no consumer surplus.
Actually I was pointing out that comparing different items is problematic which is why economists usually look at something’s price.
In terms of real price vs. nominal price that is done by taking the nominal price at a given time and calling that the base. Then using a price index one can inflate or deflate a nominal price at other times so that one is removing the effects of inflation from the price of various goods. However, price indices are not really an actual measure of inflation (as defined as changes in the money supply). A price index is an estimate of a cost of living index. A cost of living index is not actually measurable as consumers subjective utility functions are not knowable. So a price index is used as a proxy. Some price indices are better than others. CCP uses a chained Laspeyres index which does have an issue in that it does not treat price increases and decrease symmetrically.
I don’t believe I ever wrote any such thing at all. I did write that we really don’t care about money per se, but instead care about real economic goods and services. Money acts as a means of facilitating those transactions and as such is amazingly useful. But the actual value of a dollar bill is actually…not the same as it’s purchasing power, which is true of all fiat currencies. The cash in one’s wallet has purchasing power in large part because everyone believes it has such purchasing power.
Note by the way you confused subjective value with marginal value which indicates a degree of ignorance of economics. Here you are confusing price with value, again indicating a degree of ignorance.
You also wrote the above, to which I noted that yes, currencies have an objective nominal value, but that people don’t really care about those…that they care about real value–i.e. goods and services.
And your “springing” the concept of “real value” on me is rather hilarious in that the timeline shows I used the concept first when I wrote “real goods and services”. Goods and services are what people value…so I was talking about real value.
You also wrote this which is simply laughable. Of course your time has value both in terms of definition 1 you copy and pasted and in terms of definitions 2-5. People clearly sell their time for money…that is called “a job”. If you have education and skills you can charge more for your time for a particular job than if you didn’t. That education and skill is typically referred to as human capital.
Now I know you’ll run to investopedia or the dictionary and say I’m not using some word in accordance with some definition or other therefore I’m totally and completely wrong. Go for it. But all the terms I used: consumer surplus, utility function, Laspeyres, cost of living index, etc. are all legitimate concepts. You can find pretty decent write ups of them around the web, even investopedia.
Oh, and yeah…the language of bankers and economists, they don’t always overlap. For example, “capital” most bankers and people take that to mean “money”. Most economists take it to mean things like plant and equipment, or in the case of people their knowledge and experience that can make them more productive at certain endeavors.
You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’m sorry that simple logic is so hard for you to follow:
Players actually playing the game is good.
It’s in the definition of “player” and indicated in the ELUA
Having the in-game economy effected by computers without players is not good. (This includes AFK and bots)
Once again it’s in the EULA
as others exampled, there are many ways to affect the game and the economy without using your computer when you aren’t at it
Therefore, a good solution should be one that minimizes 2, while having the lease affect on 1.
Q.E.D.
“is that all you got, I thought you could hit, George?”
Maybe there is a cream for that burning you are suffering.
Agreed, anyone who thinks price and value are the same is ignorant.
The rest of your reply is equally as self incriminating.
You have made a real life out of game threat against my life, I’m not going to argue with you any more. If you continue to reply to me, quote me, post regarding me, post in threads that I have posted in, or any other such activity, there can be legal action for your staking and harassment.
Of course I’m not limited in any of these ways, because I have not made real life threats of physical harm against you, that’s the beauty of how harassment/staking/restraining orders work, they are all very one-sided.
You clearly can get so triggered by words that someone uses, so much that you would wish physical death on them, you really shouldn’t be participating in this kind of discussion or game. You should seek professional help.
As for any logical argument we were having, it is over, it ended and you lost when you said “die in a fire.” If words about a game can provoke you to real physical death, then you are not having any sort of logical or rational argument. As for the rest of us, we will continue to discuss AFK and how to make the game better; your position is known: people who don’t agree with you should die.
Jesus, what a trainwreck. If this is the best the anti-AFK-cloaking side can do I think it’s safe to say CCP is not going to be persuaded and AFK cloaking is going to stay exactly how it is now.
PS: Anjyl_Took, seek professional help. You need it, badly.
So you don’t have any argument against this, just name calling:
You keep insisting there is some right to be AFK, if there is, please show where the EULA grants such a right.
Even if the effect on bots/nullbears/etc. is good and useful, removing AFK doesn’t take that away. Not in any way shape or form. It only requires a team to take shifts running their semi-AFK cloaker while they are doing other things on their other account. You don’t want to control or affect bots/nullbears, you want to do it with a minimal effort and cost to you.
The nullbears want max profits with min effort and risk
The AFK cloakers want min effort, risk, and cost
You are both the same selfish, parasite to the game. Yet one group comes in here and not only says their ■■■■ doesn’t stink, but that their ■■■■ all over the place is good for everyone else.
Both need to be dealt with directly by CCP through game play mechanics. If there was a “what can CCP do to fix AFK nullbear farming” I would be happy to post on it in the most anti-nullbear ways possible (like my position on the bots are bad thread). But, this thread is about AFK cloaking, not about what nullbears are doing.
No, I’ve posted the arguments. At this point, with you having revealed yourself to be a complete {censored}, pointing out what a pathetic {censored} you are is about all that’s left.
You keep insisting there is some right to be AFK, if there is, please show where the EULA grants such a right.
Please show where the EULA establishes a minimum rate of clicks per hour to be considered “playing” the game, or addresses AFK players in any way. Your own delusions about what you wish the EULA says do not count.
It doesn’t but this hasn’t been suggested except by you. This is a straw man, that is when you present something that isn’t your opponent’s argument and then say you won because you can beat yourself. This is also the paradox of the heap: CCP can establish whatever means they choose to define what activity constitutes “playing.” What is not in dispute is that, according to the EULA, you only have a right to access the game servers to play the game.
If you are AFK, then you are not active in the game and you are not playing the game. The game goes on without you, and SP train, market orders execute, and all the other things CCP has designed to happen in the game happen while you are not playing the game, but that doesn’t mean you are somehow playing the game.
Things also happen outside of the game, that affect the game, but these are not “playing the game” (according to any legal definitions given by CCP), these are meta-gaming. Two CSM members meeting at a bar and plotting a huge betraial is not playing the game."
Of course it can’t address this, because there is no such thing. It is a fiction that you have made up. a person is either AFK or is a player, they cannot be both at the same time.
IOW, you are lying about what the EULA says. Please stop lying. Without a clicks per hour definition of “playing” there is no way to draw a line between clicking something in the game client once every 15 minutes and once every 6 hours. You can not say that one is “playing” and the other is not.
CCP can establish whatever means they choose to define what activity constitutes “playing.” What is not in dispute is that, according to the EULA, you only have a right to access the game servers to play the game.
Correct. CCP can establish whatever means they choose to define “playing”. They can define “Anjyl Took logging into the game” as “not playing” and ban you. But the fact that CCP could define AFK and “playing” the way you want them to does not mean that they have done so. Please stop lying and claiming that the EULA supports your position.
If you are AFK, then you are not active in the game and you are not playing the game.
Please quote a statement from the EULA and/or official CCP representatives that this is the case. Until you do so you have nothing more than your own wishful thinking about how you want the game to be.
I have said the EULA says you only have a right to play the game:
B. License to Access the System to Play the Game
I have never said, nor implied, anything about clicks per hour. It’s easy to say someone is lying when you don’t use their words, but just make up your own.
Your lack of understanding on the subject doesn’t change what is reality. “clicks per hour” is a straw man, we are not discussing “clicks per hour.”
Could you show me where the EULA supports your position?
A legal document, like the EULA defines words when they have a special meaning other than the normal use. Since AFK implies “not playing,” the burden of proof rests with you to prove your case. So:
So you want me to be logged in and click buttons in the game when I have active market orders?
The only thing in there is that botting isn’t allowed. All the other stuff about AFK gameplay is you making up things to support your narrative.
Um yeah, actually we do. There’s just no point to continuously mention them, as you’ve proven yourself to be too illiterate to even be able to comprehend them on the basic level.
Now if only you had the slightest clue about what that ACTUALLY means!
Where does the EULA say AFK gameplay is bad and how does the autopilot fit into that? If CCP would have any problem with AFK gameplay, why do they not only allow it, but actually endorse it with game functionality?
I know you’re unable to answer that and will just twist it around again to fit your limited understanding of what it should be and why we’re all wrong. I think at this point it’s fair to say that you are the most illiterate poster I’ve ever seen on the EVE forums and that really says a lot.
Nope, that is handled by the server, not by the player’s computer without a player that I was referring to.
Botting is a separate issue. It clearly says that you only have a right to access the game to play the game. There are special snowflakes who think they have a right to access the game at anytime, even when they are not playing the game. But that is what is not granted in the EULA.
There is no such thing. You are right, I can’t argue against your made up words.
Since you think I don’t understand things so much, please tell me how a person on the other side of the city in a business meeting (okay flipping burgers in your case) or sleeping is “playing the game”?
That’s an easy one. Is he doing something? Is he having any effect on the game world? Yes? Well, then he’s playing the game. I could also answer that more thoroughly, but why bother. You’re 1) too stupid to grasp it and 2) only read what you want to read.
Hence any “discussion” with you is equivalent to this:
And that’s why I won’t really bother. Come back once you’ve passed pre-school.
Oh and also, you really shouldn’t write q.e.d. when you have literally no idea what it means. Only ends up in you misusing it in a context where it makes no sense.
Is he dong something? Yes
Is he having any effect on the game world? Sure, I’ll give you this one.
Well, then he’s playing the game. False, this does not follow from from either of the first two.
Let’s say once a week you play chess (okay, maybe Candyland), but during the week you read chess books (look at pictures of fake candy) and think about the strategies you will use the next time you play. All these things you do, will affect your playing the game, but they are not playing the game. Next week the Pats and the Eagles will play in the Super Bowl, I’m sure that right now they are doing things to prepare to play in the Super Bowl that will affect the Super Bowl, but that does not, by any meaning of any of the words mean that they are now, playing the Super Bowl.
You know, they say that you can tell the measure of a person by their enemies. Although I can’t say anything about the quality of my opponents nor their ability to use logic, I should be flattered that there are three of you who feel you need to insult and call me names to avoid talking about any of the actual points. Hell, one of you even felt that threatening to kill me was the only way to oppose logical points I had made.
So thank you. every time you throw out an insult without actually discussing a point, you are really just admitting your own inability.
You make subjective arguments based on a misunderstanding of words and sentences. Your premise is flawed, your argumentation is flawed and your line of thinking is flawed. There simply are no “logical arguments” that we could discuss and discussing your subjective thinking is a pure waste of time as you’re set in your ways and disregard everyone that disagrees with you / points out why you’re wrong. You thus don’t have any interest in a discussion, you only want people to agree with you.
