I guess this is getting to be a dead horse.
Calling me culturally biased, when what most people on this forum are talking about are English-based muds is just another venture into non sequitor. Being a moderator isn't really enough license to keep making personal assessements for daring to disagree with you. You say what is clearly labeled as my opinion isn't 'true'? Yeesh.
Extrapolating my very simply-understood point to mean "all South Korean gamers are moderators" is just fallaciously polymic. Argument for its own sake. This is a debating tactic that really cheapens a debate.
I don't really see a lot of South Koreans in this topic thread saying what you're saying. I see you saying it, and very likely fitting the precise demographic I was very specific about.
So, for the sake of pre-empting additional trivial side-points such as, "I have no arms or eyes, can't type, am not from this planet and therefore have no language skills, and therefore all games are inherently unfair, and if that's true, paying money for items non-payers can't get is therefore no MORE unfair than all those other conditions', let me add this caveat. I believe some of the 'nuances' of this debate are implicit.
Being intentionally obtuse to meaning, resorting to personal assessments, and otherwise honing debate skills without really furthering the topic beyond "Everything's fair, so long as a doc is available somewhere calling an unfair practice a 'rule'." isn't really the purpose of this thread, beyond the fact that it does invite that rather singular opinion.
Definition 1 says it best. The word 'fair' has genuine meaning, and if any 'bias' is being shown, it would be the bias toward those who are willing to outspend rather than outgame someone. Yes, it's a design and policy choice, but its goal isn't by any reasonable person's stretch of credulity intended to promote 'fairness'. It's intended to promote 'profits'. It can of course be excused as 'fair' so long as everyone knows that's the case (presuming, which I don't, that the moderators are -completely- honest up-front about how it precisely affects gameplay).
Having said all that, I had a platinum account on GS4 for years. I got WHACK perks for it, -while- I had extra time to play as well. I didn't at any point feel like I was paying the extra money to promote fairness. I wanted the unfair advantage it gave. It was clear, up-front, documented as a 'rule', and the knowledge that such was the case was available to everyone, even if the means to exploit it wasn't. It was that very obvious situation that not everyone would have the means to exploit it that gave me an unfair advantage, in that I could. These advantages quite often create unintentional additional advantages, so it's very reasonable to say that it wasn't really all that up-front, just because it was in the 'rules'.
Let us agree to disagree. You think I'm a culturally biased and innately unfair and unreasonable person with disproportionate views on money.
I think you're a rationalizing defender of money-grubbing special interests with a profit agenda more interested in diluting than crystallizing a debate.
