[Soap Box] {Lock On} & general charity shouts

[Meyi]

The trouble is the playing fields arent level out there. We all know people who use windower to see mobs "appear" long time before anyone else can see them. The amount of server lags also disadvantages the non pc users.

Wow so much wrong here.

Windower doesn't allow anyone to see anything before anyone else. All Windower does is make the game go into a windowed mode. To my knowledge there are no plugins that allow for this. If someone is seeing monsters then they are using a bot of some sort.

Also, PC have much more lag than PS2. PS2 players obtain information way before PC. My old LS leader was a PS2 leader and he could outclaim lots of people because of this. If you don't believe me, go to an airship on a PC and a PS2; for the PS2 version the airship will stop and you can board, but for the PC version, you can board the airship before the airship has fully stopped.

Also Japanese receive information faster than North Americans. (Or at least they used to, I don't know if this is accurate anymore.)

To the OP, if there's a scam shout, don't join it. If people are idiotic enough to join it then they will hopefully learn their lesson when it's over.

I have to say I disagree with GreatGuardian about the Black Mage scrolls only because the item doesn't evenly distribute money to everyone who worked for it. First off not everyone in the alliance pulls their weight equally (some don't even pull their weight at all) and secondly the scroll can only benefit one person. While I agree that 500k would be nice to have and that they are ripping us off of a profit, the scroll isn't a guaranteed profit until the scroll appears in my inventory. Nothing gained, nothing lost. I'd personally rather see someone benefit from it because I know the struggle of collecting gil for scrolls and armor, but like I said, I can understand how it could be considered a scam.

I only get angry when people claim that they can "use" something only to turn around and sell it on the auction house.

Edit: Wanted to add a bit more.

Wrong.

There is everything inherently wrong when creating a false market. You're falsifying the market by artificially throttling the supply, a supply that is not suppose to be yours. Also, please stop ignoring the distinction between R and R/Ex gear. Scroll != R/Ex

Um, do you know how mercenary groups actually work? I have never seen a mercenary group randomly pick a monster, go out, outclaim other people, and then laugh at them as they ask for money or to let the item drop. While this may happen it's not the norm.

How mercenary groups normally work is that they decide they want to kill a monster for x item, but nobody in the group wants y item, so they shout or /tell around asking who would like to buy the y item from them. Whoever buys it doesn't have to do any work, just has to provide the appropriate amount of gil.

My linkshell sells tons of +2 items because we're there for the emp. item, not the gems. The gems are sold to people who could use them but don't have the manpower to kill the NMs. They walk away with their new +2 armor and we walk away with lots of gil. There's absolutely nothing wrong, disgusting, or immoral about our transaction.

Whether the item is normal, rare, ex, or rare/ex doesn't matter. An item is an item. Some people have lots of friends, a good linkshell, or a decent way to rally up manpower. Some people don't. For those that don't there is gil to help them get whatever it is they need.

In before "rare/ex means you need to work for it!!!!"

This is really stretching reality to suit your own view point. If what you said is true and SE intended for R/Ex gear to be sold then why make it R/Ex in the first place when it simply could be Rare. Obviously R/Ex was never intended to have an economic value. If we can not agree on that then I have nothing further to discuss with you.

They never said we couldn't sell rare/ex. If that was the case then we would be seeing more Voidwatcher like items where you have to participate to get a reward at the end, and nobody can share their rewards with each other via a treasure pool.

It's rare/ex so you cannot trade, bazaar, auction house, or send it through the delivery box (minus mules). That doesn't mean you cannot trade something else for lottings rights to this item, such as your time (by joining a linkshell or killing a different monster in exchange), points (a linkshell), or gil.

Sell it all you want because you can, it doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong either.

I was always thankful of mercenary linkshells because I never wanted to join a linkshell and deal with the rules of attendance and lotting rights. I could farm money on my own time, play whenever I wanted without being a slave to a group of people, and in the end walk away with items I wanted. Same with people willing to buy things my group doesn't want; at least the items are going to someone who can use them rather than rotting.

To this day, people still cheat and bot. Ignoring this proves one's hidden agenda. Denying this just proves one's ignorance.

Some do, some don't. It is just a video game after all, does it matter if someone cheated when you log out of the game and attend to real life responsibilities?

I personally don't see any pleasure in cheating because it is just a game. If I'm going to put in that much energy I'd rather go find something else to do.

There's nothing wrong with taking 4 people to kill a mob that drops 4 items(or in your case 5), each person locked onto a specific item.

I'm honestly surprised people are so offended by having other people lotting on the same item as you. Back in the day monsters we would farm would have very very poor drop rates, and everyone was after the same thing. Now that monsters drop up to 4 different kinds of seals, people feel entitled to one of them. I have no qualms with everyone locking in a job/item, but sometimes people have to share to get the necessary job or help in.

[Kimble]

I really dont get the big deal over this. People are free to shout and do what they. If people want to join, they are free to do so. If they just want one seal and dont care about the other 3, they prob could care less if one person is getting the other 3.

Would I join? Most likely not. Should I start a fight with them and mess with them and call them stupid for doing it? Not really. Everyone has freedom of choice.

[Shiyo]

Wow this entire thread is like a gigantic waterfall of misinformation.

[Puck]

Darn my overwhelming urge to insult you. I'll try to keep this as civil as possible.

What I said falls under point 2 of your definition, it's just a condensed explanation of what I said. I'll explain for you.

"2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated."

An argument or opponent = take what someone said/their position
set up so as to be = change it slightly(to be obviously wrong) to suit your needs
easily refuted or defeated. = easily 'prove them wrong' because of your changes
"??? profit" = for the lols because forum discussions get too heated and could use some lols

What Kiroh said is a way(i.e. taking words out of context) you can strawman but is not an all inclusive definition. Greatguardian's definition was dead on. I'll reiterate, my original usage of the word was just fine and so was my post explaining it.

I've been using the term 'straw man' before it became a buzz word and I'm flattered that you'd liken me to a 'master-debater'. Really, I'm just some schmuck with strong opinions.[/B]

Yet you're still stretching the term to cover things that clearly are not strawman arguments. Comparisons, analogies, and the use of relevant examples are not "strawmanning" (to use your verb form). "Taking words out of context" is not the use of a strawman, either. These are common points that occur in any discussion that lately people are throwing the term "strawman" at to dismiss comments that refute their standpoint, much like throwing the term "trolling" at a comment (which you've already done).

There's not really anything to "strawman" about your original post to begin with. It's just a rant. It took the conversation shifting to a discussion about whether or not it's "ethical" for people to sell the rights to Ra/Ex items before an actual argument with some sort of point/counterpoint emerged. Even then it hasn't occurred in regards to your rant.

Actually the closest thing to the use of a straw man in this thread isn't even related to your post. It's Katz trying to bring up Windower in response to Greatguardian's post about claiming. He did so, however, due to extreme ignorance of what Windower actually can and can't do, but went there anyway thinking it was easier to attack rather than actually addressing Greatguardian's points about the rights to claims.

[katz]

I admit I have never looked into a 3rd party software called windower. I was refering to the comments other people said to me when I saw incidents. As to windower that you guys are all getting on your high horses about, it is still giving you advantages that are not available to xbox and ps2 users. I know this for a fact, my pc version sees more than my xbox version, like 10 secs more. Both are logged in the game at the same time, I see one char drops 10secs before I see the other char drops. So I can see with my own eyes that pcs have advantages over xbox users. For people who say there isnt any difference, I would suggest you try using alternative systems and see it for yourself. As far as Im concerned windower is a 3rd party software that is not supplied by SE and is therefore against existing SE policies no matter what it does.

[Byrth]

What you're describing is actually an artifact of the disengaging process, I think. From what I've seen, character that kills the monster always seems to see the drops in the log later. It's not related to PS2 or PC. I've sat two PCs next to each other and my WHM consistently sees drops first.

[katz]

Hmm but what about if you didnt kill the mob on either char and you still see the difference?

[Byrth]

I don't know, because I was duoing. I know that the treasure box icon showed up above the character names at the same time on both PCs. I think it's like how the opener of a BC treasure box always sees the loot in the chat log last.

[Toggles]

Yet you're still stretching the term to cover things that clearly are not strawman arguments. Comparisons, analogies, and the use of relevant examples are not "strawmanning" (to use your verb form). "Taking words out of context" is not the use of a strawman, either. These are common points that occur in any discussion that lately people are throwing the term "strawman" at to dismiss comments that refute their standpoint, much like throwing the term "trolling" at a comment (which you've already done).

There's not really anything to "strawman" about your original post to begin with. It's just a rant. It took the conversation shifting to a discussion about whether or not it's "ethical" for people to sell the rights to Ra/Ex items before an actual argument with some sort of point/counterpoint emerged. Even then it hasn't occurred in regards to your rant.

Actually the closest thing to the use of a straw man in this thread isn't even related to your post. It's Katz trying to bring up Windower in response to Greatguardian's post about claiming. He did so, however, due to extreme ignorance of what Windower actually can and can't do, but went there anyway thinking it was easier to attack rather than actually addressing Greatguardian's points about the rights to claims.

You're not worth my time anymore so I'll try to keep this short.

What Kiroh said is a way(i.e. taking words out of context) you can strawman but is not an all inclusive definition.

"Taking words out of context" is not the use of a strawman, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Reasoning

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. When I listed in-thread examples I specifically stated they fell short. Funny that, considering the relevancy of your posts to this topic. No, seriously, do you even realize how many times you've done it in this thread, presumably without even knowing since you still can't fully understand the term.

ANYTHING(virtually?) can be strawman'd, even a 'rant'. Why you think otherwise it beyond me.




Sources cited, examples given, simplistic step by step comparisons made showing your errors, yet you still fail to accept that you're wrong. Others' have tried their hand at it and you do not budge. Just about all your words can accurately be said straight back to you, that's how out of touch your are on the topic.

You struck me as a total troll from the start but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Since then I've realized I should have went with my initial instinct instead of helping out your 'ignorance'. I'll be disregarding the rest of your posts on the matter. Neither side wins in a "NO, you!" war.

Good day to you, sir.

[Puck]

Yep, you went back down the route of insinuating "trolling" just as you did before. Good luck avoiding all that "strawmanning" and other forms of "trolling" trampling over your ultimately irrelevant rants in the future.