So then "right" and "wrong" are subjective to each person, rather than abiding by some absolute standard. And the only things that makes someone bad is if they are violent (except in self-defense)?
Where are you finding subjectivity in my statements? The absolute standard of universalized behavior is that initiating force against another individual cannot ever be right except in self-defense, which is only caused by a violation of the rule in the first place.
Would you agree that Truth is absolute? Regardless of our beliefs, biases, knowledge - Truth stands as a separate entity which is transcultural (such as 2 + 2 = 4) and unchanging. Would you agree?
Sure, but what does truth have to do with my argument?
Truth is not absolute. Did people not once believe it true that the Earth was the center of the universe? Or that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Or that if you sailed far enough over the oceans, you'd fall off the edge of the Earth?
The fact that the senses are prone to error or that our empirical understanding of the world improves over time does not evidence the argument that there is no objective truth. It simply shows that seeking truth is an ongoing process.
Some more recent examples of so-called "truths" that have been proven absolutely false are the end-of-the-world prophecies, such the millennium doomsday belief that had many people thinking the world would come to an end at midnight on 31 December 1999, or that the end of the Mayan calendar at 2012-12-21 would bring about the Apocalypse.
I don't think any rational person today would have said that any of those things were likely, much less true.
There is no and there will never be proof, those who want to belief interpret the signs in a way to support their beliefs, those who don't believe in god will argue against it. To each his own, it would just be nice if both sides (atheists and believers) could stop attacking each other.
Then there is no and never will be any reason to suppose that a deity exists. It would be nice if we could agree on that, being that it is the reasonable conclusion. I don't mind if someone wants to entertain a fantasy; however, the claim to truth from said fantasy obstructs cultural progress for completely arbitrary reasons.
As long as some people believe one thing, and others believe something else, there will always be conflict of some kind.
That is human nature.
The only way to eliminate the conflict, is to eliminate the entire human race. It may sound a little harsh using those words, but as long as humans exist, we will attack each other over our beliefs...
"Human nature," is something that babies are born doing. Breathing, eating, sleeping, following their parent(s) around, etc. It is entirely illogical to assume that complex social cues like bigotry are natural genetic phenomena.
As long as toxic culture exists, conflict will exist; however, we are not powerless to influence culture for the better.
It's a good game; Could be better, could be worse, and seems to be improving over time. I'd like a lot more features, but I wouldn't like to pay a subscription fee or see a more coercive market structure.
You are right, of course but I think the discussion is a fair bit more complex..... The (subtle) point I was making is that as the player base dwindles, demand dries up and prices of the goodies I am finding is falling. Therefore it is taking a lot more time to generate in game gold compared to 3-6 weeks ago. Now, by rights, economic theory suggests that high end (BiS) item prices should also start to fall to meet the lack of gold being generated... BUT the fly in the ointment is that I think botters have seriously distorted the market place to the point that there is now a 2 tier market - the "haves" and the "have nots". Botters are generating enough gold (including great legendary drops) to be able to trade amongst themselves whilst the peeps (like me) struggle through requiring enormous hours to progress by very incremental margins! It was great to see the ban wave yesterday, lets hope it helps even the playing field, but I wonder how much damage is already done?
I am one of those tenacious types, so I'll keep grinding my way through but the vast majority of players are not as persistent and that imho is why we are seeing a very serious drop off in player numbers....
While the discussion can become infinitely complex, with the addition of as many market variables as you can imagine, the point was that in practice it doesn't have to be so. If you took the time to map out every possible shift in supply and demand before you placed a bid or posted an auciton, you'd quickly find yourself spending days on end agonizing over every exchange. That is a fine thing to do on the macro scale, if you want to do so, but for the player who is simply wondering how to offload their stuff for gold, there's little point in delving so deep into the morass.
If I am to understand you correctly, your claim is that "BiS," items are rising in price while the price of nearly all other goods is falling. You view this as a failure of the market; a division into "haves and have nots," but like the socialist mantra you're echoing, it simply doesn't retain water. The demand for item X, as a best in slot item, is going to remain strong despite it's short supply becoming slightly greater over time. It trends this way because it is the effective ceiling on the asset side of the equation. Since there is no similar ceiling on the gold side, item X can freely fetch whatever people are willing to pay for it. The other items, ones with less than perfect stats, are in an almost endless supply, and it is therefor logical that their value will free-fall, especially with the expansion of the gold supply and the improvements in drop rate on the very high end. Over the long haul, regardless of player retention, the demand for better and better items is going to trend with the demand. If, as you insist, many players are priced out of a market they want to be in, then prices will fall as supply inexorably rises.
If what you say about botters is true, that they dump huge amounts of gold and high end items into the economy, then their effect on the economy to the average consumer who does not bot is largely neutral, if not beneficial. Botters are not violating any of the laws of supply and demand, they are simply a reaction to demand out-pacing supply. If players didn't want all those high end items, then there would be not botters. Similarly, due to the presence of so many botters, their items are constantly pushing value towards equilibrium. In other words, if you are active on the market, it should please you to see so much competition. When there are so many seperate instances of orders attempting to unite supply and demand, the odds of guesstimating exactly where the two meet are much better.
I don't know what the figures are for player retention and frankly, it doesn't matter much in my view. So long as there are more players than one, there will be a functional marketplace and that market will be governed chiefly by supply and demand. Any attempt to "level the playing field," in a meaningful sense would simply void the necessity of the market. Some people are going to input much more time and effort (and I include the risky business of botting in this arithmetic, although I do not endorse the practice) to realize their economic goals and that is always going to be the case.
In sum, if the goal is to make the most of your game time on the AH, there's very little point in getting angry at the natural forces of the market. Understand the basics and the rest begins to make much more sense.
At the risk of sounding pedantic: The solution to the problem of AH items not selling is simple. Reduce your prices and items, keep moving the price down, and eventually you will find a level that matches demand. If you find that point is below the artificial gold (vendor value) floor or that the process takes up too much of your time (ex. spending three hours modifying prices to realize a net gain of 10k gold) to be economically efficient, then you simply stop listing items of that stripe.
There's nothing inherently mysterious about the market and the basics remain constant.
Well, frankly it has been predicted just about every year in recorded history (and doubtless many times before that). That doesn't lend credential to the prediction so much as it supports the hypothesis that anyone predicting the "end of the world," is much more likely to be a raving lunatic than anyone who has rationally theorized that something terrible is going to happen. If the latter were the case there would at least be some verifiable empirical evidence in play rather than some completely anecdotal hearsay and superstition. As we saw with Y2K, this susceptibility to brain-bending urban legends has not necessarily diminished over time.
tl;dr: A great number of people are irrational and believe in any superstition you throw at them.
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.
Well put!
Where are you finding subjectivity in my statements? The absolute standard of universalized behavior is that initiating force against another individual cannot ever be right except in self-defense, which is only caused by a violation of the rule in the first place.
Sure, but what does truth have to do with my argument?
The fact that the senses are prone to error or that our empirical understanding of the world improves over time does not evidence the argument that there is no objective truth. It simply shows that seeking truth is an ongoing process.
I don't think any rational person today would have said that any of those things were likely, much less true.
Then there is no and never will be any reason to suppose that a deity exists. It would be nice if we could agree on that, being that it is the reasonable conclusion. I don't mind if someone wants to entertain a fantasy; however, the claim to truth from said fantasy obstructs cultural progress for completely arbitrary reasons.
"Human nature," is something that babies are born doing. Breathing, eating, sleeping, following their parent(s) around, etc. It is entirely illogical to assume that complex social cues like bigotry are natural genetic phenomena.
As long as toxic culture exists, conflict will exist; however, we are not powerless to influence culture for the better.
Well played sir, well played.
While the discussion can become infinitely complex, with the addition of as many market variables as you can imagine, the point was that in practice it doesn't have to be so. If you took the time to map out every possible shift in supply and demand before you placed a bid or posted an auciton, you'd quickly find yourself spending days on end agonizing over every exchange. That is a fine thing to do on the macro scale, if you want to do so, but for the player who is simply wondering how to offload their stuff for gold, there's little point in delving so deep into the morass.
If I am to understand you correctly, your claim is that "BiS," items are rising in price while the price of nearly all other goods is falling. You view this as a failure of the market; a division into "haves and have nots," but like the socialist mantra you're echoing, it simply doesn't retain water. The demand for item X, as a best in slot item, is going to remain strong despite it's short supply becoming slightly greater over time. It trends this way because it is the effective ceiling on the asset side of the equation. Since there is no similar ceiling on the gold side, item X can freely fetch whatever people are willing to pay for it. The other items, ones with less than perfect stats, are in an almost endless supply, and it is therefor logical that their value will free-fall, especially with the expansion of the gold supply and the improvements in drop rate on the very high end. Over the long haul, regardless of player retention, the demand for better and better items is going to trend with the demand. If, as you insist, many players are priced out of a market they want to be in, then prices will fall as supply inexorably rises.
If what you say about botters is true, that they dump huge amounts of gold and high end items into the economy, then their effect on the economy to the average consumer who does not bot is largely neutral, if not beneficial. Botters are not violating any of the laws of supply and demand, they are simply a reaction to demand out-pacing supply. If players didn't want all those high end items, then there would be not botters. Similarly, due to the presence of so many botters, their items are constantly pushing value towards equilibrium. In other words, if you are active on the market, it should please you to see so much competition. When there are so many seperate instances of orders attempting to unite supply and demand, the odds of guesstimating exactly where the two meet are much better.
I don't know what the figures are for player retention and frankly, it doesn't matter much in my view. So long as there are more players than one, there will be a functional marketplace and that market will be governed chiefly by supply and demand. Any attempt to "level the playing field," in a meaningful sense would simply void the necessity of the market. Some people are going to input much more time and effort (and I include the risky business of botting in this arithmetic, although I do not endorse the practice) to realize their economic goals and that is always going to be the case.
In sum, if the goal is to make the most of your game time on the AH, there's very little point in getting angry at the natural forces of the market. Understand the basics and the rest begins to make much more sense.
There's nothing inherently mysterious about the market and the basics remain constant.
Only after the last little bit of tasty liquid has been wrung from the world of warcraft franchise.
And yes, I do realize my own seizure-inducing appendix real estate development does render my post more than a little hypocritical.
Well, frankly it has been predicted just about every year in recorded history (and doubtless many times before that). That doesn't lend credential to the prediction so much as it supports the hypothesis that anyone predicting the "end of the world," is much more likely to be a raving lunatic than anyone who has rationally theorized that something terrible is going to happen. If the latter were the case there would at least be some verifiable empirical evidence in play rather than some completely anecdotal hearsay and superstition. As we saw with Y2K, this susceptibility to brain-bending urban legends has not necessarily diminished over time.
tl;dr: A great number of people are irrational and believe in any superstition you throw at them.
Apparently it is also a license to kill.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."