Sarjahurmaaja.

It does? Why do you say that? If there's a joke here, I'm missing it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course, I just assumed you meant everyone else your age in your country.

"I also used to lie about my age, back when I was a twelve year old on a forum filled with old people, and everyone else my age didn't know a capital letter from a comma." Your country sucks.

That cat is probably angry.

"I guess that's my problem....I like to be as equal as possible (I know they're 'just' animals' but you know what I mean)....I don't see myself as master of any living thing." The thing is, dogs are pack animals. They need to know who's the boss to be happy.

7 wasn't the number I was thinking when I read the review. I kinda liked the controls in the demo.

Then that is your failing. I just wanted to say that.

Oh, Eldar, you know how these self-evaluation threads always end up! This is me. Clearly.

"Most people raise dogs to be too slavish/not independent." Most people raise dogs to become their masters, instead of being masters to their dogs.

"I am now not so sympathetic to VUG since they were treated so shabbily by Valve." Vivendi never deserved sympathy.

I do hate it how the unfriendly and distrustful are villainized in games nowadays.

Add some asterisks and it's straight from the Orz!

"I honestly don't know what the hell are you talking about here." I'm talking about how the devs of the game do not condone the selling of even the right to control the assets you mentioned. It's is not the players, not even if they think it is. "Again, you are trying to establish a direct link between the fact that Mirial doesn't attack the GHSC in that communique and the possibility that she isn't angry. That link exists only in your mind." It wasn't the only one I read. It was the one Google gave me afterwards. Hey, Squidget's given us tons now. And, you know, remember that betrayal stuff and all that you talked about? You haven't given any shred of evidence to prove that. I think I stand on a firmer ground. "And at any rate, it's the intent that matters." Clarify. "So how about you make some sense for a change?" Didn't you argue that the reason why what happened was bad was because the GHSC went "out of the game" to accomplish what they did. Now, if that's how the majority plays the game, it's no longer really outside the limits, is it? Now, you say don't care if they do that -- I guess that means you don't get the game they're playing.

Squidget

"It may be argued that even that is under CCP's control but that is only theoretical, as they would not exercise such control arbitrarily lest they drive players away. Now, if such assets are destroyed and/or stolen, they are not under the control of the original players. Those players have effectively lost control over an in-game resource, and that control right in turn had real world value" Aren't the MMORPG devs trying to stop that stuff because it is driving the players that make money for the devs away? "Irrelevant. You posted it as 'proof' that Mirial's attitude towards the whole mess was 'GG!'. Which is not, and therefore the whole purpose of your post is defeated. Irrelevant? It's irrelevant that Mirial isn't venting off anger, judgement, fire and brimstone on GHSC and their actions? Ok then, I don't know what we're talking about. And, as a sidenote, I haven't claimed Mirial went all "WONDERFUL GUYS, THAT'S SO AWESOME!" or anything like that. I'm claiming the betrayal wasn't much of a heart-breaking affair. Oh, and by the way, since I missed this so long ago: "I don't care if she had done it herself before. If that is indeed the case, it's only proof that that community is even more rotten than the article shows, and to what depths will those people sink to pursue their virtual vendettas or take over others' virtual fortunes." Yeah, I guess you don't get the game? "Are you trying to add something to the debate or you are just posting randomly in an attempt to 'win the thread' by getting the last post?" I'm totally convinced now. I was wrong, you were right, let's hug.

"So? Legally it's not their property, but it de facto is. Are you going to start living in denial as Volo, too?" I guess if I steal something it's de facto mine, right? "You can read whatever you want from it, but the facts are that there is not a single hint of approval or admiration in that communique, or whatever it is. You are just twisting it to support your untenable stance. Good luck with that." There's not a single hint of disproval, either.

"The EULA doesn't prevent players from selling their virtual property rights over assets or even entire accounts on Ebay." It DOES, however, establish that it's not their property. As Magical Volo would say, "period". "As for the second quote, uh, still I don't see Mirial going 'GG!'. All it says is that she hasn't quit EVE. A coherent decision for someone that stupid, really." I said closer to "GG" than whatever you were proposing. There's no complaining about what happened, and the comments are even IC. To me, it seems that the player is accepting it as a valid way to play the game.

"Links, plz." Here you go! You need to scroll a little.

"Read the article again. The economic damage has been equivalent to some $16k. Yes, that's RL currency." Yes, that would be all fine and dandy, if it was the property of the players. Which, I'm afraid it wasn't: edit: Oh, please, Schu, Meta, spare my thread! Have I not done the same to your threads in the past?

By the way, for those of you who disagreed with the awesomeness, how would you feel if some sort of player organized police force would've infiltrated and thwarted the GHSC's operation? Now, what would you think of a MMORPG where this was how stuff happened? "OMG NO LIEF"ers need not reply.

A more refined version of that cover would've been so much better than what we got.

"Also, SC2 is the best game evar." Man, it'd be totally awesome if the Orz screwed you over in the end.

"[apparently complete misunderstanding] Bleah." The profit to developers, silly!

"You cannot argue that any individual player will regard some metagaming behavior or another as "beyond the pale". For example, humiliating or hurting another player with out of game knowledge, or harassment, or threats, or whatever, there will always be something that even the most casual metagamer will consider as 'too far'. Therefore everyone has metagaming boundaries." See, the difference between your examples and what happened is this: no one's person or property was attacked or harmed. So, yeah. "Further the boundaries are arbitrary. For every person who out of earnest competitiveness, machismo or simple cruelty admits some nasty new bit of metagaming into the game proper without protest, there is another person for whom it is a bridge too far and vice versa. There is no precise dividing line between propriety and impropriety." Oh, but there is: profit.

Fishboot sure is taking his sweet time. I bet it's gonna be the longest post evah!

"This most likely involved OOC sucking up, lies, and duplicity. And it most certainly has involved OOC gloating. That part of the receiving end I have a hard time believing is like 'gg'. For that is called betrayal, pal." See, the receiving end I was talking about was the guy who got betrayed and assassinated. So, yeah. Hell, the community of EVE Online, AFAIK, prides on playing a carebear free game, or some such nonsense. "If they don't find premeditated personal betrayal, set up through primarily non-game channels, to be transgressive metagaming then what's over the line? Can I find their names out and harass them over the phone? Should I expect a slap on the shoulder and a "GG!" after I jump out of some guy's bushes and punch him in the stomach? Maybe I should be allowed to scream and pretend to have seizures during my opponent's turn in a chess match?" I wouldn't go there if I was you - I hear that slope is mighty slippery!