|
Atryeus - I understood Matt's point, and am far from illiterate. The point of my post was to show the difference between Matt's loaded and twisted example, and an example that was objective. "Free-to-Play" is objectifiable - I even used extensive and boring dictionary definitions and explanations that a child could understand to show this.
Matt doesn't think "Pay-for-Perks" accurately describes the conditions of IRE, because Matt doesn't think this is the most positive spin on his model that he can put. However, as the definitions show, it IS an accurate example of his model. There are no contradicting definitions.
Admins can describe their business model in the MUD Bio if they wish - let the color-coding/etc be controlled by the owner of the site.
I'd really like to hear some arguments that aren't empty, insulting, and take my -entire- post into account... instead of just selectively quoting and arguing with a single line, just for the sake of being able to argue back at all.
Try a little harder if you want others to take you seriously - nobody seems to be rushing to your side of this argument for a reason.
|