Nerfing sparks and unity enchanges for gil is not the answer.

[Neogon]

?? I was pretty sure google+ was killed because it was crap and nobody liked it, not because it had a security exploit. I personally didn't enjoy google trying to shove it down my throat and make me create a google+ profile every time I went to youtube or tried to play games on my phone.

Nearly every website I've ever used has a maximum password length less than 30 characters. Hell, my company's intranet only allows 8 characters (But they also make you change it constantly).

This is true, but if you can be compromised in this fashion, odds are they can get your password out of you as well (or force you to enter it for them)

You're welcome to find another means to contact me if you really want, and I'll respond to your inquiries further. However, I refuse to bite at red-herrings - AKA, off-topic responses.

[Alhanelem]

You're welcome to find another means to contact me if you really want, and I'll respond to your inquiries further. However, I refuse to bite at red-herrings - AKA, off-topic responses.

You already responded right there. If you're bothered so much by "red herrings" (what?) then don't reply, and don't bring up other topics if you don't want anyone else to talk about them. The only way for you to end a conversation is to walk away- and not tell people you're doing it.

You brought those things up, so you've no one to blame but yourself if it's such a problem. This isn't even your thread, nor are you a moderator, so why do you feel like you get to make the rules?

[Neogon]

You already responded right there. If you're bothered so much by "red herrings" (what?) then don't reply, and don't bring up other topics if you don't want anyone else to talk about them. The only way for you to end a conversation is to walk away- and not tell people you're doing it.

You brought those things up, so you've no one to blame but yourself if it's such a problem. This isn't even your thread, nor are you a moderator, so why do you feel like you get to make the rules?

I'm not talking about some forum's subjective and nonsensical rules. I'm talking about objective, argumentative rules. Red-herring Fallacy... Everything You Said was Beside the Point. What was I responding to when you quoted me? Someone who had originally stated, "It is virtually impossible for somebody to have their account hacked if they have the proper security means in place (i.e They use the Securekey)" despite the fact that most people are not remotely security-minded (as proven by the success of Facebook, phishing, and middle-man attacks).

Shalom.

[Alhanelem]

I'm not talking about some forum's subjective and nonsensical rules. I'm talking about objective, argumentative rules. Red-herring Fallacy... Everything You Said was Beside the Point. What was I responding to when you quoted me? Someone who had originally stated, "It is virtually impossible for somebody to have their account hacked if they have the proper security means in place (i.e They use the Securekey)" despite the fact that most people are not remotely security-minded (as proven by the success of Facebook, phishing, and middle-man attacks).

Shalom.

You going off on a tangent and people responding to that tangent doesn't make it "beside the point." You brought it up, therefore it is relevant, as if it had no meaning or relation you wouldn't have mentioned it. And here we are on a totally different one which you also brought up- logical fallacies. Are you going to play the "red herring" card a second time? Or are you going to stop taking this so seriously and just either discuss with dignity or move on?

I replied to the things you said because you said them and I was interested in what you said. If you're actually interested in the discussion but concerned about its relevance to what was going on before, you could have started a new thread.

Now, rather ironically, after Ireplied to someone on the original topic, you came back and sent it off topic again.... lol

despite the fact that most people are not remotely security-minded (as proven by the success of Facebook, phishing, and middle-man attacks).

From a logic standpoint, it doesn't prove anything, as there isn't a proveable correlation between those things you listed and being "security minded." Being "security minded" itself doesn't make you immune to social engineering and other sorts of attacks, even if it does lower the likelihood. We are imperfect beings and even fi we are aware of good security practices, sometimes we make mistakes.

[Vold]

Alrighty then. So anyway, for those not following the JP threads the best they can on this subject, the devs basically said the following in code speak "the simple thing to do would be to raise the spark caps we implemented, but that is too simple so we're monitoring the situation and are trying to think of non existent methods of improving things for the playerbase that doesn't involve helping rmt i.e. we'll never think of a way, and blah blah yada yada repeat of how we like to deal with rmt and why we don't out right ban dem bots you see all the time"



and as far as things like chapter prices go



"we would like for you to do the orb and merit fights for chapters and have sparks be a bonus(like, snap I need just one chapter!!!!), even though we were fine with 7.5k and 15k before with unlimited sparks, but now we're not fine with easing the fees on players despite putting in a measly 100k cap on sparks. We hope you understand and apologize for the inconvenience"


A bold strategy, Bob. We'll see if it pays off.