Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Fharron · 01-16-2004, 09:27 PM

Threshold

Perhaps you would do better to spend your time actually reading posts rather than jumping to respond to them, for the puerile goals of points scoring and sophistic artistry.

Your Neopets example did little to clarify the issue or support the point you where trying to make. They do, as part of their operations, provide a service that is free for people to use, however this does not classify them as, or give them a claim to be, a charitable institution. I’m almost certain that if you looked at their tax returns and their corporate listing you would clearly see them singularly identified as a commercial operation, I don’t think free would be mentioned anywhere in such documentation – other than as a possible tax concession for running costs.

I sincerely doubt they would describe themselves as a free but commercial organization. They would, possibly, be more inclined to state something along the lines of ‘We are a commercial organization that provides free access points to enable the public to experience our product range’.

Traithes post was far more cohesive and worthy of reading. Indeed the problem of ascertaining the specific nature of the claim was why I used the at best and at worst outline for my comments. The inclusion of such a statement does little to clarify the nature of the game, but it could lead players into assuming that it is free from financial costs and financially induced impediments to the quality and fairness of game-play. Perhaps this is why some muds choose to place an emphasis on Free by placing it first and foremost in the statement, when it is obviously a secondary consideration in their operational mandate. It gives them the self-purported appearance of being free, and the draw that brings along with it, without identifying the specific nature of the game – it allows them to have their cake and eat it.

In respect to your time/money comment, I stated that time and money have no bearing upon each other and then identified the context of this bearing in terms of being able to cancel each other out. One would naturally expect that the accompanying example would have been enough to identify the train of thought supporting my argument.

In the context stated time and money do not have a direct bearing and in my universe, the one of common sense, there is nothing absurd about such a statement. Time and money are separate resource categories and the identifiable spheres of influence surrounding them do not have a common grounding, despite the falsehood that the social and economic structures of mankind might wish to lead people to believe.

At best there is a trivial association between the two in response to transactions, and in no way does this minor association wholly support the declaration that such separate resources are mutually interchangeable. If that was the case then not only could you employ a lawyer and plumber with your money you could also buy back your childhood, or the time you spent writing your misinformed response.

The overall thrust behind my argument was that introducing money does not alleviate the discrepancies arising from the amount of time people can spend playing a game. Furthermore, the introduction of money reduces game balance by bringing into, and subjecting the game and all its players, to RL situational differences. The inclusion of these external differences makes a mockery of any attempt at game balance.

It has been stated that this is a valid model, I think by Atreyu, and perhaps it is. Providing the goal is to appease players with little time, money to spend, and the value of consistent, fair, and challenging game-play is a secondary concern of the game owners.

Then again I could be wholly wrong and such a system could be the holy grail of gaming operations. Being that I have little time available to train and some spare cash to spend perhaps I should approach the Olympic Committee, with the purpose of entering the upcoming Olympic Games. I could, with the widespread acceptance of such a fair system, buy myself a 90m head start in the 100m or a few thousand points in the decathlon. I’m sure my fellow athletes would support such a move and in the spirit of fair play the committee would do likewise.

01-16-2004, 09:27 PM	#23
Fharron New Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26	Threshold Perhaps you would do better to spend your time actually reading posts rather than jumping to respond to them, for the puerile goals of points scoring and sophistic artistry. Your Neopets example did little to clarify the issue or support the point you where trying to make. They do, as part of their operations, provide a service that is free for people to use, however this does not classify them as, or give them a claim to be, a charitable institution. I’m almost certain that if you looked at their tax returns and their corporate listing you would clearly see them singularly identified as a commercial operation, I don’t think free would be mentioned anywhere in such documentation – other than as a possible tax concession for running costs. I sincerely doubt they would describe themselves as a free but commercial organization. They would, possibly, be more inclined to state something along the lines of ‘We are a commercial organization that provides free access points to enable the public to experience our product range’. Traithes post was far more cohesive and worthy of reading. Indeed the problem of ascertaining the specific nature of the claim was why I used the at best and at worst outline for my comments. The inclusion of such a statement does little to clarify the nature of the game, but it could lead players into assuming that it is free from financial costs and financially induced impediments to the quality and fairness of game-play. Perhaps this is why some muds choose to place an emphasis on Free by placing it first and foremost in the statement, when it is obviously a secondary consideration in their operational mandate. It gives them the self-purported appearance of being free, and the draw that brings along with it, without identifying the specific nature of the game – it allows them to have their cake and eat it. In respect to your time/money comment, I stated that time and money have no bearing upon each other and then identified the context of this bearing in terms of being able to cancel each other out. One would naturally expect that the accompanying example would have been enough to identify the train of thought supporting my argument. In the context stated time and money do not have a direct bearing and in my universe, the one of common sense, there is nothing absurd about such a statement. Time and money are separate resource categories and the identifiable spheres of influence surrounding them do not have a common grounding, despite the falsehood that the social and economic structures of mankind might wish to lead people to believe. At best there is a trivial association between the two in response to transactions, and in no way does this minor association wholly support the declaration that such separate resources are mutually interchangeable. If that was the case then not only could you employ a lawyer and plumber with your money you could also buy back your childhood, or the time you spent writing your misinformed response. The overall thrust behind my argument was that introducing money does not alleviate the discrepancies arising from the amount of time people can spend playing a game. Furthermore, the introduction of money reduces game balance by bringing into, and subjecting the game and all its players, to RL situational differences. The inclusion of these external differences makes a mockery of any attempt at game balance. It has been stated that this is a valid model, I think by Atreyu, and perhaps it is. Providing the goal is to appease players with little time, money to spend, and the value of consistent, fair, and challenging game-play is a secondary concern of the game owners. Then again I could be wholly wrong and such a system could be the holy grail of gaming operations. Being that I have little time available to train and some spare cash to spend perhaps I should approach the Olympic Committee, with the purpose of entering the upcoming Olympic Games. I could, with the widespread acceptance of such a fair system, buy myself a 90m head start in the 100m or a few thousand points in the decathlon. I’m sure my fellow athletes would support such a move and in the spirit of fair play the committee would do likewise.