Boundaries between real life and game in P&W

[aaaaddd22]

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?

Edited December 19, 2015 by ischelle

[Fox Fire]

The Donald Trump ads are obviously not IC. Everyone knows that. I think ads were a dumb thing to implement entirely and this is why. 

 

 

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?

 

Exactly. The sole existence of Bubbles is to promote Donald Trumps election it seems. But this is OK. Why play the game when you can just troll by using it as an advertisement billboard for your own personal amusement? Sheepy doesn't have a reason to care, this is how he makes money. 

[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?

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. 

Edited December 19, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Peace and War]

I don't see what the big deal is. I'm all for freedom of speech. If you wanna do Trump 16, go ahead. You wanna do Coka Cola? Sure why not. Nazis? If that's your thing.....

 

But ultimately leave it up for sheepy to decide what's right for the game or not, since its really his game.

 

Otherwise there's nothing really to get upset about here. It's just advertisements that really support the game no matter what. By restricting that freedom, your restricting the income.

 

So really I say let Trump 16 continue and ignore it if it bothers you, and let sheepy do his job as the owner of P&W.

[Prefontaine]

Also note that PBG is probably the largest purchaser of in game credits, they said around 25 or so a month through the market. That will lessen the demand and drive prices down thus making credits cheaper, thus making them less desirable to buy, thus making Sheepy less money.

 

TL;DR Killing Trump costs Sheepy money.

 

#IStandWithPBG

[Rozalia]

Also note that PBG is probably the largest purchaser of in game credits, they said around 25 or so a month through the market. That will lessen the demand and drive prices down thus making credits cheaper, thus making them less desirable to buy, thus making Sheepy less money.

 

TL;DR Killing Trump costs Sheepy money.

 

#IStandWithPBG

 

Trump is good for the economy confirmed.

[Spite]

Although I'm not a fan of google ads, that's a way to reduce the need to make money for the game itself. Sheepy doesn't get any income for player ads.

[Prefontaine]

Although I'm not a fan of google ads, that's a way to reduce the need to make money for the game itself. Sheepy doesn't get any income for player ads.

 

Trump is making money for the game by buying all those credits on the market, driving up the credit price, making them more desirable. Players have to buy credits for them to exist. Credits give Sheepy money. You're proving my earlier statements about you. Thus, since you're in favor of ads that make Sheepy money, you're in favor of Trump adds.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Prefontaine

[Spite]

That's a weak argument. It's like saying that starting wars makes people who were unprepared terrified for their pixels, so they buy credits to make money, therefore war is good for Sheepy (or similar). In other words it's convoluted crap. I can't recall how many credits I've bought from Sheepy, but Mensa has bought a lot, and as far as I know nobody has ever mentioned the price ingame of credits as being a motivator for them buying them.

[Prefontaine]

That's a weak argument. It's like saying that starting wars makes people who were unprepared terrified for their pixels, so they buy credits to make money, therefore war is good for Sheepy (or similar). In other words it's convoluted crap. I can't recall how many credits I've bought from Sheepy, but Mensa has bought a lot, and as far as I know nobody has ever mentioned the price ingame of credits as being a motivator for them buying them.

 

Ah, so you're not more likely to donate money when that money would get you more of the thing you want. Keep on conducting that stupid train. Also credit sales DO spike during a war. 

 

So lets use a very, very, very simple (see: even you can understand) example. When are people more likely to want to have a credit?

 

Scenario 1: Lowest Price of a credit on the market is 1.5M

Scenario 2: Lowest Price of a credit on the market is 2.5M 

 

The more credits that become used each week (PBG using lots for joke Trump ads) the less credits there are in circulation. The less credits there are in circulation the higher the price they go for because they're a less common commodity. The less Credits in circulation thus drives up the price, thus making credits more desirable to purchase with real money, thus raising the probability of Sheepy making money on adds. Thus you're in favor of Trump ads based on my previously quoted statement of yours.

 

It's okay to be wrong. You've been proven wrong. Accept it and move on with your life. Unless you like entertaining me so... Then by all means continue digging that hole.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Prefontaine

[Spite]

I understand supply and demand, I don't understand why you feel that calling people you disagree with stupid makes it true, or that it somehow makes your argument stronger. In fact it is a typically child-like response to an argument: I disagree, and also you are stupid. I'm not sure where this attitude of yours has proven successful in the past, but rest assured all your posts do is weaken your own arguments by tainting them with puerile insults.

 

People buy credits for a host of reasons, but the bottom line is that they need money fast. Most of my fellow Mensa players who bought credits bought the maximum possible. Under those circumstances, whether the current value of credits is 1.5m or 2.5m is irrelevant to the actual purchase. Yes it is nice if you can get more for credits, and people may hold onto their credits for a few days or weeks for an optimum price. However I'm confident that if you correlate the price of credits on the market with credit purchases, the correlation will be relatively weak. In fact I would suggest that the majority of credits will be bought in the first week after the reset, suggesting that most players buy credits regardless of price.

 

Under those circumstances, supply and demand have little relation to the actual purchase of credits from Sheepy, and only to do with the price of the credits after purchase, which is a separate issue.

 

In addition, as you have agreed there are multiple relating factors which effect the supply and demand on all markets. War, diplomatic moves, suggestions regarding upcoming perks, new items released that require credits- all these things have led to changing market prices. I would suggest the growing emphasis on items which require credits such as ads and VIP status have contributed to the growth in credit value. PBG has been part of that, but to suggest that her ads have had a significant effect on Sheepy's income is completely without foundation and nothing more than speculation.

 

I would suggest that if you want to use such weak logic, then you might look to the effect of an old account raiding new players as soon as they come off beige. Killing off new players by using them as a cash cow to make ads is not a way to make Sheepy more money. Removing those potential new credit buyers, making them lose interest, taking traffic away from the website- by your shaky logic this easily counters any effect that PBG has on the credit market.

 

But no doubt you'll just call me stupid or idiotic or slow for another post, because that's all the argument you can actually manage.

[Prefontaine]

Do you think more people would donate for a credit valued at 1.5 mil or 2.5 mil? I'm not asking about what Mensa does, though from my previous conversations with Pfeiffer the alliance donations have drastically dropped off, and when you first came in donating hard I don't think credits existed then it was just straight donation, though I could be wrong on that timetable. 

 

Regardless, the simple point is that if a credit has a higher value it's going to attract more people to want it. If more people want it, more people are likely to donate to get it (see: Not just Mensa). If more people are likely to donate for it, Sheepy is more likely to get donations. This is why I call you stupid, for not grasping that concept. But by all means claim I've not made an argument or point anywhere and that it's just mean calling your stupid. You'd certainly prove yourself to be stupid then! 

 

Oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I get it now. You're simply not reading. Or at least you're reading and substituting your own words in to what I'm writing and not actually reading what I'm writing. It's like you're making fanfics of my posts. Adorable.

 

but to suggest that her ads have had a significant effect on Sheepy's income.

 

Where did I say it would have a significant effect on donations? I never said it would cause a significant impact on the donations received, making them more valuable might get him a couple extra donations though and PBG effects the value of credits single handedly by consuming approximately 25 of them a month through market purchases for ads. 

 

In addition, as you have agreed there are multiple relating factors which effect the supply and demand on all markets. War, diplomatic moves, suggestions regarding upcoming perks, new items released that require credits- all these things have led to changing market prices.

 

 

I do believe the only ones I've mentioned were war and the monetary value of a credit. But hey man, it's your fanfic about my posts. Rock on with yourself.

 

I don't understand why you feel that calling people you disagree with stupid makes it true, or that it somehow makes your argument stronger. In fact it is a typically child-like response to an argument: I disagree, and also you are stupid. I'm not sure where this attitude of yours has proven successful in the past, but rest assured all your posts do is weaken your own arguments by tainting them with puerile insults.

 

You don't understand is because you are stupid. I explained the situation clearly about why you were wrong in the first place based on your lack of knowledge about PGB and thought he was actually advocating for Trump, and that you couldn't see the joke in it. PBG has a ton of credits and lots of in game cash, they don't care about growth and thus can just dump all their cash into credit purchases and lulzy adds. Thus the principal behind your whole wall of text was entirely wrong. You have no problem with people RPing something, but have a problem with "advocates the election of an external RL politician" stating that it's "is treacherous ground". Your core purpose is therefore wrong. The alliance is a joke. A joke you've missed, and taken as something serious, and even worse as something sinister that needs to be prevented. 

 

I gave you that info that your base judgement was wrong, then I called you an idiot for putting effort into that OP wall of text when you clearly didn't even speak to PBG about it to find out what was up and how mistaken you were.

 

You took the bait like a champ, and continue to. I provide evidence to counter your statements, even though you call it "weak" and such, you still have to counter it because I've gotten those delicate panties in such a ruffle from simply calling you dumb while disagreeing with you that you can't wait to swallow more troll bait and have to reply to each my posts tonight. Thus perpetuating why I believe you to be dumb, you simply can't understand why I'm doing what I'm doing.

 

Since this post has gotten out of hand because I honestly started writing it before reading your reply (Heh), lets sum up why you're wrong.

 

1. You never bothered to talk to PBG directly about this whole thing in advance to actually find out was up.

2. Then drew conclusions based on faulty information that you never sought out.

3. Are actually -for- the benefits created by PBGs ads in regards to an increased likelihood of Sheepy gaining money. 

4. More demand for credits increases the value of credits, more ads means more demand for credits. PBG is the largest ad producer. Higher value more likelihood of people wanting a credit (see: point 3).

5. Sheepy has already made his ruling on this, before you made the thread even. Which actually makes me chuckle about your thread in principal. 

 

Oh yeah, and six. You're an idiot.

[Crust]

You've complete ignored the point spite made about PBG driving away new players and thus potentially new donators

 

None of the people I play with feel comfortable donating, let alone playing a game that shoves Donald trump in their face, even if they are jokes.

 

And why is it a good idea to keep letting one troll that isn't even playing the game keep trolling people when it's clearly driving players and potential players away? That to me sounds like a bad investment.

 

PBG could be be buying 30 credits a month for all its worth, it's still not even when you add the people who keep their wallets shut because of this to the equation.

 

Also I'm not completely understand why you're so upset about this thread. So seem really mad is it that important to you to let trolls keep trolling?

[Prefontaine]

You've complete ignored the point spite made about PBG driving away new players and thus potentially new donators

 

Any ads could cause that. By that logic it could welcome new players as well who support him. Since they support trump they're obviously rich as well and will give him all the monies. (That last part is sarcasm)

 

None of the people I play with feel comfortable donating, let alone playing a game that shoves Donald trump in their face, even if they are jokes.

 

You can use ad-block, grow a sense of humor, or grow up. 

 

And why is it a good idea to keep letting one troll that isn't even playing the game keep trolling people when it's clearly driving players and potential players away? That to me sounds like a bad investment.

 

He's playing the game how he wants to play it, and he's doing so within the rules. Who are you to tell him how he has to play the game? You know how to beat a troll? Ignore them. Just like the ads. Creating a thread about it is possibly the worst solution.

 

PBG could be be buying 30 credits a month for all its worth, it's still not even when you add the people who keep their wallets shut because of this to the equation.

 

Sheepy's already instituted a rule change. It's already gonna change. Again, it's easy to avoid the ads, block them. Ignore them. I personally hate Trump and the ads don't bother me one bit. Probably because of the fact that I'm a rational adult and know that the ads generated by players do not reflect the views of the game, or game admin. But hey, it's a hard thing to understand for the little people. 

 

 

Also I'm not completely understand why you're so upset about this thread. So seem really mad is it that important to you to let trolls keep trolling?

 

I'm not upset. I'm happy. I wouldn't be posting if this wasn't bringing me enjoyment.

[Crust]

You can use ad-block, grow a sense of humor, or grow up.

You mean make the game lose more revenue? That seems odd coming from you, who use money as an argument for PBG. Even if I were to grow a sense of humor or whatever, it doesn't matter. If a company were to put up player ads as cheap PR on the game I'd be equally irritated, it shouldn't be there.

 

He's playing the game how he wants to play it, and he's doing so within the rules. Who are you to tell him how he has to play the game?

I'm not telling him anything about how he should play the game. I'm saying there should be more rules and restrictions from sheepy's side on what's allowed in regard to ads. The ban on presidential candidates doesn't address the main point of this thread.

 

You know how to beat a troll? Ignore them. Just like the ads. Creating a thread about it is possibly the worst solution.

 

You know an easier way to deal with a troll? Just banning them. It's super easy. I'm a mod for a community with over 50 000 members and we grow each day, because there's rules that are clear and where we actually enforce those rules. But idk, sheepy could do what moot did and just be miserable with a game where users don't stay too long because there's trolls get to run free.

 

 

Sheepy's already instituted a rule change. It's already gonna change. Again, it's easy to avoid the ads, block them. Ignore them. I personally hate Trump and the ads don't bother me one bit. Probably because of the fact that I'm a rational adult and know that the ads generated by players do not reflect the views of the game, or game admin. But hey, it's a hard thing to understand for the little people.

You seem to be using a lot of insults for such a rational person. You can't have a discussion with someone who agrees you without turning to name-calling and using patronizing words?

 

Ads that the admin allows do in fact represent the game. So does the players. It's a part of the game, how could it not be a representation. When I join a game that has these types of ads it gives a pretty clear picture about who the target audience is. It's not rocket science.

[Mike Haggar]

People are annoyed by your ads, Princess Bubblegum. But not as annoyed as they could be by, say, a nuke with "Trump 2016" written on the side. Plan future credit spending accordingly.

 

And I still maintain that we are rehashing a problem that has been solved. Ads for in-game purposes and roleplay only. This is up to admin interpretation so nations of potato chips can be built for roleplaying reasons but they must be tolerant of other races of potato chips. Princess Bubblegum keeps current ads that credits have already bought so her resources are not stolen. Termination is January 31st. Unless I'm misinterpreting that, Sheepy?

Edited December 19, 2015 by Mike Haggar

[Spite]

Alright Pre- I responded to your points but you're still just calling me stupid and behaving like a child, so I'm not going to engage you further. Arguing with children is for teachers and I don't feel like wasting my time.

[Prefontaine]

You mean make the game lose more revenue? That seems odd coming from you, who use money as an argument for PBG. Even if I were to grow a sense of humor or whatever, it doesn't matter. If a company were to put up player ads as cheap PR on the game I'd be equally irritated, it shouldn't be there.

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. 

 

Alright Pre- I responded to your points but you're still just calling me stupid and behaving like a child, so I'm not going to engage you further. Arguing with children is for teachers and I don't feel like wasting my time.

 

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

[aaaaddd22]

 

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? 

Edited December 19, 2015 by ischelle

[Wayne]

The whole, 's/he supports the game by buying credits therefore certain actions should be tolerated' thing is a weak as !@#$ argument and only stupid people could back such a statement.  Sheepy is taking action, I imagine because of numerous complaints.  So it's safe to say that Sheepy is prepared to maybe take a hit on his profits in order to keep the community from turning on itself.  Proving that 'they buy credits, they are good for the game' is not a line of thinking that Sheepy follows.

 

Would 'roleplaying' as a carpenter and using the advert feature to do nothing but advertise my business, be ok?  If every click of a button in game gave you a Wayne's Wood ad that linked to external websites, the coummunity should just suck it up and take it?  With Sheepy taking action, I think now is a great time to discuss and debate what we, the community, find to be acceptable and not.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Wayne

[Prefontaine]

The whole, 's/he supports the game by buying credits therefore certain actions should be tolerated' thing is a weak as !@#$ argument and only stupid people could back such a statement.

I completely agree. Who's advocating donators receiving special treatment?

Edited December 19, 2015 by Prefontaine

[Tywin Lannister]

It's disappointing to see how almost everyone has failed to grasp the actual aim of the thread, that is to debate the concept of external advertising and where we draw the line for it. This isn't a thread wanting discussion about Princess Bubblegum, or her advertisements in specific, or Donald Trump, or Sheepy's income, it's simply the concept and where should a line be drawn. Majority responses have just either insulted the OP or centered it by keeping Bubblegum's advertisements in mind, which really shows a narrow approach. 

 

Majority of such gaming communities I've been a part of have had a rather strict policy on external advertising of any kind. Whether it's another game, a product or any such real life event, it isn't allowed and probably is a good thing since a clear rule just avoids the hassle of it all. I mean, potentially, right now, people could create an account and advertise any real life event or some product they've to market, and as long as people with a potential to participate or purchase are getting reached, advertisement and marketing is happening. 

 

I couldn't find any rules on advertisement in-game, but as far as on forums, "We do not allow advertising of any kind on these forums. You're welcome to discuss different games and software, but soliciting them is strictly prohibited." I think Sheepy should have a similar rule tailored for advertisements in-game, which are related only to in-game and unless a clear link is established, they shouldn't be allowed. Good advertising can be entertaining and all but it's still advertising. 

 

This all is of course in theory, looking at it from more of a realistic perspective, P&W simply just doesn't have enough player base to actually make it worth to advertise anything here. Granted if there was a boom of sort in the amount of players and, for example, 100,000 players came in and started playing, then I will say it had pose a potentially serious problem.  

 

Sheepy's current ruling is that no presidential advertisements can be run when election is near but it is again from a more narrow perspective, in my opinion. For me, it simply is the question that what business does something not related to the game I'm playing have to do in a place for advertisements regarding that very game? I think the fix is rather easy and simple, a clear rule that anything not related to game is not allowed. I agree that this isn't a big problem right now, but the fix is insanely simple and easy to apply. 

 

Not exactly on topic but something I saw in responses was that people saying this is Sheepy's game and he is free to do what he wants to, and as such, having any discussion is a time waste. I highly disagree with this. The community is what makes this game for Sheepy and any competent game owner realizes that the real thanks is owed to the community for any success he sees(I'm not saying he doesn't already realize this). As such, ceasing discussion just because I don't own the game is extremely counter productive and frankly, ridiculous.  

[Princess Bubblegum]

 

Although I'm not a fan of google ads, that's a way to reduce the need to make money for the game itself. Sheepy doesn't get any income for player ads.

 

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.

 

 

 

and as far as I know nobody has ever mentioned the price ingame of credits as being a motivator for them buying them.

 

lol

 

I'll be honest with you all here; Credit purchases are still just steadily declining, which makes me sad. Player activity/membership is back to normal levels following the hacking incidents, which is good, but I just don't think we're seeing enough demand for Credits.

 

To be honest with you, I'm already considering something like the ability to buy additional perk points for credits, of course nothing gamebreaking, but like the ability to pick an extra perk (not overall, as in one more perk than anyone else, just that instead of having to wait to pick your next perk you'd get to do it immediately) or a credit or something. Still brainstorming that idea, but I think it's something that might really drive up demand.

 

Ideally, I'd love to not be able to do that and just add it as entirely F2P content, along with all new features, but at the current rate that would be unsustainable. I'm trying to crowdsource for more suggestions as to make VIP benefits more attractive.

 

 

 

Current redemption price for credits is $1,000,000 each, but they average around $1.5-2m on the market. 

 

However, less and less people are buying credits each month, a large portion of people are using their credits for VIP and player advertisements, which are both good things, but unfortunately that's not everyone, and a small chunk of usual sales.

 

I thought that spending more money on advertising to bring in more players would ultimately lead to more credit purchases, but that doesn't appear to be the case either. I'm trying to come up with ways that we can increase the number of credits that are purchased, which ultimately stems from the value of the credits.

 

What can we do to increase the value? With the amount of money that alliance banks have stored these days, it doesn't seem that anyone really needs to buy extra money. One thought I have is increasing their infrastructure value from 50 to 100. Yes, that would mean large players could build even larger cities, but extra infra only does so much. Extra slots aren't really needed for large players, and we see stagnant growth in cities due to infra costs. If we could make it easier for larger nations to get infra at high levels, we might see bigger cities (more damage to do in your wars  ) and an increase in demand for credits.

 

The other option is to simply increase the amount of money they can be redeemed for. Again, I don't want a pay to win game, but it's kind of a necessary evil of the monetary inflation in-game.

 

I guess my question for everyone is, at what monetary benefit ($1,000,000? $1,500,000? $2,000,000? $3,000,000? $5,000,000?) would you be willing to spend money to buy a credit? I think we're below the equilibrium point currently and have a shortage of demand, so I'm trying to figure out how to change that.

 

 

 

 

 

I would suggest that if you want to use such weak logic, then you might look to the effect of an old account raiding new players as soon as they come off beige. Killing off new players by using them as a cash cow to make ads is not a way to make Sheepy more money. Removing those potential new credit buyers, making them lose interest, taking traffic away from the website- by your shaky logic this easily counters any effect that PBG has on the credit market.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I like Trump 2016 ads.

[Princess Bubblegum]

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.

 

 

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. 

 

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? 

 

 

>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.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum