[Boundaries between real life and game in P&W]

 

If you have a nation that is a member of an Eve alliance, you have established an in-game presence. Anything that follows from that, so long as not violating other rules, is derivately in-game. And yes, that can be role playing. I can also role play the Coca Cola company in the same manner. Eve Online might be a bit more triggering to the admins because it may be viewed as market competition, but the basic principle remains consistent. If you are claiming there should not be any advertisements of real life products in P&W, then to be consistent you would ask Sheepy to remove things like this roku ad:

 

 

But the contention isn't to remove advertisements from P&W, just player-made ones that possibly market real things. The reasoning behind which is that it is not of in-game relevance. The result is circular reasoning:

 

 

 

You could break out of the loop by attempting to claim externalities such as a potential loss of revenue for Red Road Entertainment--which I haven't seen anyone as of yet claim to be main reason to prohibit player ads that have real products. 

 

At best, this is the argument that I'm seeing:

 

All advertisements of real life products that are not role play are things not of in-game relevance.

All intentional in-game advertisements of real life products are advertisements of real life products that are not role play.

::All intentional in-game advertisements of real life products are things not of in-game relevance.

 

All things not of in-game relevance are things that should be prohibited.

All intentional in-game advertisements of real life products are things not of in-game relevance.

::All intentional in-game advertisements of real life products are things that should be prohibited

 

So maybe you claim there can be advertisements of real-life products in P&W, just not via "in-game" ads. Again, why? Because advertising real-life products is assumed from the start to have zero in-game relevance and zero role-play value. But it's easy to demonstrate this as wrong (if I have a Coca Cola alliance of 30 people, is it not of in-game relevance? How about 15? 5? 3?) and Sheepy has even accepted that it is possible to do with his example of a Jack Bauer 24 alliance. Here's another example: I can argue that the Fark alliance is an advertisement of Fark.com. The response against that example would mostly likely just be along the lines of demonstrating the quantity and quality of gameplay to come from them, rather than to examine the actual presence or absence of "gameplay." And if that kind of spectrum test is applicable to all aspects of the game, then there arguably really aren't 3,900 players, and players who only show up maybe once a week or so also perhaps can't even be called players, really, since they barely do anything of in-game relevance--so we can use different standards for different strata of players based upon activity and game contributions. You can see the absurdity such arguments will derive. 

 

This reply is a wash.

" If you are claiming there should not be any advertisements of real life products in P&W, then to be consistent you would ask Sheepy to remove things like this roku ad:" 

 

Did I claim there shouldn't be any advertisements of real life products in P&W? Don't try to straw-man my arguments. 

 

Firstly, you're trying to equate in-game, user based advertisement & monetary external advertisement - which is silly, if you ask me.

Secondly, for some reason, you think 'roleplaying' should cover all forms of expression.

 

I don't care about the in-game relevance, I care about the fact that your roleplay is 100% consisting of being an advertiser for Trump. The amount of people is irrelevant to this fact as well.

 

 

The only thing Fark has in common with Fark.com is sharing a name, that's what you fail to understand; Fark is actively playing the game, rather than being a vessel for advertisement. You're not the same, literally everything you do revolves around advertising Trump's campaign. Does Fark do that for Fark.com? No, they don't.

 

 

 

 

If you have a nation that is a member of an Eve alliance, you have established an in-game presence. Anything that follows from that, so long as not violating other rules, is derivately in-game. And yes, that can be role playing. 

Well, no shit. I mentioned an alliance that isn't part of any Eve alliance, that has one purpose - buying ads to spam the game with EVE ONLINE advertisement. You don't simply have a trump-centered alliance, literally all you do is advertise for him. 

 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10166-trump-ads/?p=182499. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post. I'll just go off the bases the rest of your replies were as inept as the first. Thanks for trying though. 

 

 

Because you don't have a counter to my points. That's fine, I understand. 

I don't see how the fact those campaign ads help the economy are relevant to the discussion of weither they should be tolerated or not. If I multi I can buy more credits from the market thus helping the economy - is that a fair argument in favor of cheating? 

[Boundaries between real life and game in P&W]

This discussion isn't about Princess Bubblegum.

 

Regardless, how exactly is having no purpose in the game other than advertising for Trump roleplaying? 

Referring to previous examples, if I made an alliance that only links to EVE online in its advertisements, and contribute nothing else to the game, is it "roleplaying" an Eve advertiser?

 

If you can see the flaw in that, you can see why 'roleplaying' as a Trump supporter that does nothing but to link Trump's campaign page isn't 'roleplaying'.

 

 

 

And here comes the actual discussion; 

At what point does ingame promotion of an outside organisation, brand or individual become "advertising" and have to be judged as such?

[Do you feel moderation on OWF is too heavy handed, or is it fair and balanced?]

I'm fine with you having this thread and discussion. Let me make my case briefly also, though.

 

The moderation staff have lives, and I don't expect them to read through every post in every thread. Our moderation is heavily based on what posts are reported; we review reports, and issue warnings where necessary (you'd be surprised how many reports we received that we don't issue warns for.)

 

Furthermore, the moderation team is not heavy-handed. A warning point is barely even a slap on the wrist--your first warning point results in no punishment. Second is a 1 hour posting suspension. 3rd is 24 hours, 4th is 48 hours, 5th is 5 days, 6th is 10 days, and 7th is a permanent ban. Most importantly, though, is that the warning points automatically expire after 30 days. You really have to be a serial offender to find yourself at the higher end of that spectrum, and I'm not sure we've ever banned anyone permanently through the warning system.

 

Imho, I sometimes think the moderation is too lenient for some repeat offenders who abuse the warn system to avoid being banned.

 

I don't think this is the point being made. I think that OP argues the reasons you would get a 'warning' is too heavily moderated.

[Do you feel moderation on OWF is too heavy handed, or is it fair and balanced?]

not option for too soft???

Judging by your previous suggestions and opinions, I'd say if you are supporting harsher moderation that is a cue to soften them.

[Rebellion/Uprising/Riot]

A better idea is to give a bonus to income/resources once above a certain approval raiting.

[More war stats]

Dio provides.

[8/16/2014 - Bonus for Having a Forum Account]

Nation name: Snicklefrintz

Nation link: politicsandwar.com/nation/id=24493

[Can You Make It Harder]

So... volcanic eruptions might be a deadly cataosrophe, but could we mine the shit that was erupted? 

[We've caught you Canada]

Nuclear warfare is my least favorite type of warfare. It's too decisive. I want something more tense.

[I don't think I've done this yet.]

Welcome.