Jump to content

Princess Bubblegum

VIP
  • Posts

    663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Princess Bubblegum

  1. Here's who I have listed as players so far: Ansom https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12283 Naturella https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=22866 Pedro II https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=23195 Thalmor https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=12021 Metro https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=439
  2. This is a good idea. I'll amend the raffle to include checks prior to the final drawing. Each check will act as another "raffle ticket."
  3. THE GREAT TRUMP 2016 GIVE AWAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF8cf8fEwQU TRUMP 2016 would like to kick off the new year by holding a $25 mil raffle. There will be two winners: a first place winner who will receive $20mil and a runner-up (first loser!) who will receive $5mil. The raffle will occur on a randomly selected day between January 20th and Feb 1st of 2016. The entry cost for the raffle merely consists of flying the TRUMP 2016 alliance flag. On the day of the drawing, the nations of the players who have won will be examined to see if they are flying the TRUMP 2016 alliance flag, at which point his or her winnings will be directly deposited to the player's nation. If the winner is not flying the TRUMP 2016 flag, he or she will be disqualified and a new winner will be randomly selected. All players who wish to enter the contest should make a post in this thread stating their intention to enter. To obtain the TRUMP 2016 alliance flag, simply apply to join TRUMP 2016. While under applicant status, you can go to your nation edit screen and change your flag to the TRUMP 2016 alliance flag. Once changed, you may return to your previous alliance. Alliance link: https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=1723 May the odds be ever in your favor and have a happy TRUMP 2016! Edit: to promote flying the TRUMP 2016 flag for a longer duration, there will be 2 "checks" prior to the final drawing (randomly between now and the final drawing period). Each nation checked as having the TRUMP 2016 flag will earn a bonus drawing ticket, thus increasing their chances for the final prize.
  4. They're just so close! It's practically borderline!
  5. >Did I claim there shouldn't be any advertisements of real life products in P&W? Don't try to straw-man my arguments. >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. Pick one. Either you care about there being advertisements or you don't. >Firstly, you're trying to equate in-game, user based advertisement & monetary external advertisement - which is silly, if you ask me. See my previous post about why there are advertisements in the first place. >The only thing Fark has in common with Fark.com is sharing a name, that's what you fail to understand; Fark was established by players from Fark wishing to make it clearly known where they were from. The effect of having the name Fark when your members are from Fark.com is to advertise Fark. >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. I've been playing the game since Dec. 2013. I've created multiple alliances, of which TRUMP 2016 is only the latest. I have over 500 forum posts and have actively contributed to the design of the game multiple times. I do play the game. I just don't grow my nation. Those two are not synonymous. >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. So you do care about advertising. Again, what does it matter? You're just creating this sacred cow that player advertising of any kind is bad without explanation. I've already addressed the arguments pertaining to it. And I am role playing, regardless if you think it's only advertising or not. >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? You haven't really explained why they shouldn't be tolerated either, the reason for which I'm guessing is I've already eviscerated those potential arguments.
  6. It's funny because the motivation for more income for sheepy was the SOLE purpose for creating the ad system. Originally we were thinking of tying it to the VIP section to incentivize VIP purchases. If you can argue the Sheepy isn't making money from ads, you can make the argument for him to dismantle the entire system. lol Except this isn't even remotely true. My preferred targets are nations on the brink of deletion--which is actually helping the game because it sends those players another email reminding them about the game.
  7. 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.
  8. I ignored your bait, if that's what you mean, since you asked me an obviously loaded question. The standard I advocate, and have advocated, which is fairly clear, is, so long as not in violation of any other game rules, ads must have some in-game relevance. Ads that "market" real life things without in-game relevance would already not be allowed with that standard. Since Sheepy has accepted some metric of allowance for real-life marketable material in ads, the idea that there can be "no marketing of real-life material" at all is clearly wrong. This has been brought up here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10063-please-ban-the-donald-trump-ads/page-2#entry180662
  9. 1) I refuse to state, in a affirmative or the negative, that my motivations are to annoy people 2) Whole alliances (big ones, like BLOC) have existed with that sole intent. I'd argue that annoying people is a large part of what makes games like these fun. 3) Beating a dead horse, but if you want to restrict "advertising," there's going to be a huge gray area, and you'll be left with the whims of admin teams and/or trying to guess intent (something that compromises role play). Clearly some people think that's desirable to a more defined and likely more tolerant standard. Probably for similar reasons of hesitation given for anonymous player-based forum moderation. Any game admins are going to probably have access to sensitive nation data, much like Malone had as admin. When you give that kind of power to an anon player, it creates obvious problems. So you would probably want non-player game admins, either non-player volunteers (good luck) or paid employees, the latter of which would be more hard-come by given the desire to nerf the game's income potential through said moderation. Because some rules are essential to the game and others, like the one was been proposed on ads, are more aesthetic--arguably unneeded and wasteful of resources.
  10. They log in play as much as they want pay me for it without it being transferred since I still have power over the account. Your definition of not transferred is "not having power over the account" which amounts to not knowing the password to the account and presumably not changing it, because the renter would certainly have the power to do so. So because passwords aren't being transferred in any manner, therefore the rest of the account isn't. Your use of account is strictly limited to "passwords." The moment you go beyond passwords as a definition of "account," you are in violation of the rule. Even more to the point, read the rule again: It specifies nations, as in the actual game play mechanics.
  11. Amazing. Well you're entitled to that view and sheepy is entitled to agree. I don't.
  12. Lol you ask me to define a word then use it to make your point. Classic tautology. It's not transferred because I defined it as such! If they are playing on your account, they have power over your account, i.e you have transferred it.
  13. No. You couldn't. You'd be transferring it to another user. The duration is irrelevant. And this shows that 1) objective standards are possible and do exist and 2) you're not really interested in reaching the truth. You just have a goal that you want accomplished and are willing to be a sophist to get it.
  14. Cool. give me an example of a loophole then. Protip: you can't.
  15. Hogwash. I'm doing it in this thread as demonstration of the flaws of your horrible "standards". If you're going to use terms like "crossing a line," you're saying there's a standard because I can just ask you to tell me where that line is. What you're telling me now is that the standard is in the intent--again essentially indeterminable beyond the whim of the admin team and indistinguishable from role play.
  16. My point? I wasn't the one who made a thread asking the community to establish a set of standards or ask where boundaries are crossed. If you want to leave it to sheepy's subjective opinion, fine--he's going to do that anyway. It's his game. What you are establishing is a democratic mob rule, though, when you say just get enough people to complain about a person and Sheepy can wield subjective standards to punish them. That's a horrible way to run a game--or anything.
  17. No, people just can't grasp--or more likely don't want to grasp--that the only way this is going to work is for the admin team to be subjective and hypocritical. There is no objective standard here beyond either allowing everything that is game-related (even if it has the appearance of advertising non-game related stuff as well)... or nothing. There is also no subjective decision that won't have a "loophole" to point out the inconsistency of that decision.
  18. Trumps words are music to my ears... I can't see why you don't see that. Edit: if you missed the point, all I need to do is take a video of Trump and make it "musical enough," which itself is subjective (how loud does the aesthetic melody need to be relative to verbal words to pass your standards). And that boundary will always have more and more loopholes which I'd be happy to use just to prove the point. It's a fruitless and time wasting endeavour. And here's another one: What a lovely song. Here's what I'm getting it at:
  19. And how about youtube videos.. You can just as easily advertise with those. People put youtube links in their nation description all the time. Now you can even choose your own anthem. Maybe I can put up a Trump speech? Whadya think? Edit: My new anthem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=561CdWwpTeM And before you think this proves your point, consider this: I can make an alliance (or even a nation/user name), duplicate everything about my alliance with the exception of it being dedicated to Taylor Swift, then advertise her latest songs and albums the same way. The point is you will never escape what you are arguing is "advertising" without removing all of these amenities--and there goes a huge chunk of what supports the game. You'll also likely begin to enforce hard crack-downs on what is put in nation descriptions. And you'll have to start policing usernames and nation names as well. And forum avatars. Hey good luck getting any new game additions coded anytime soon with all the moderating you'll be doing, sheepy.
  20. Here's a simpler question: are you allowed to post links to outside websites on an alliance page or nation page that are entirely non-game related at all? Why can't everyone/anyone put links to Trump's website on their nation page? Are you going to punish everyone who does something like that?
  21. Been there, done that in alpha. Even had a proxy alliance, too: Genius Corp. People didn't really stick around to hate me though. They just ended up quitting the game, and sheepy ended up changing mechanics to retain players. Also you seem to be under the impression that my alliance isn't going to exist in a few months. Edit: (remember me?)
  22. Damn, not mentioned once. I guess I need to step up my game.
  23. That's cool. But it's not the bottom line of corporate advertisers that's going to hurt. It's Sheepy's bottom line. Really pretty simple: you disincentivize ads, there will be fewer of them. Ads are one of the ways Sheepy generates revenue.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.