Request: Please give us alternate ways to obtain PVP armour and weapons

[Mantrus]

I thought the subject I discussed was closed in agreement and I could stop wasting my time here, but apparently not.

First off, stop mentioning subjective value is a choice. It can be a subconscious decision based on upbringing, life values, and living situation so no it's not necessarily a choice. You might as well be arguing that being gay is a choice. And even if valuations were a choice, saying what people "should" or "could" be choosing is 1) a waste of time because hypotheticals are just that and 2) just your opinion as another hypothetical choice so this sort of reasoning is just recursive and again a waste of time.

It's just a long winded way of saying "we all have different opinions that we are allowed to feel" which we already agreed to several times; at this point, using this argument is either trying to invalidate an opinion with an opinion or wasting more time. The fact you keep bringing it up means without question you are just wasting my time intentional or not, and the fact you use this argument in debate with a passage of Ava's opinion means with pretty reasonable evidence that you are trying to invalidate an opinion with an opinion. This is not only stupid but also insulting, because using only this reasoning implies you think your opinion matters enough to counter his opinion without any follow up reasoning. At least when Ava is condescending he mentions why.

If you're not trying to invalidate his argument, then you are wasting my time to a third degree, first as previously stated for arguing with a point that boils down to "we have different opinions", two for using an argument already hashed into the ground, and three for saying words that argue no point and will get nowhere.

[Awha]

Snip . . .

I am not tying to invalidate anyone argument, that is what he is trying to do. I am simply pointing out that this debate will go no where since neither side can claim that they are objective correct, and cannot prove that having exclusive is for the benefit of the game mode itself. I have stated countless times Ava is within their right to feel how they do and request that no change be made to the system, just as those who are in disagreement with how the system are free to make requests in hopes of changing the system. It keeps getting brought up since Ava feels as if their view is the only right path, and is any request to make a change to the system because currently SE seems to be in favor of the current system is moot and frivolous. As I said before in the context of in-game rewards each side has a view point, we can be in disagreement but end of the day neither side is right or wrong, and to a degree we are all pretending that the little things we earn in this video hold any objective value, it is all subjective.

I was trying to show how Ava is trying to invalidate our opinions with opinions, why are you not getting on their case about invalidating the opinions of others with their own opinions. I do think they are they one that likes to make the claim that others are objectively wrong because they do not follow the same set of values as him. I also did mention that yes if a change were to happen current holders would lose value, but does that point alone make it so we are unable to make a request for a change to be made because it goes against the current status quo? Neither side has enough information to make a claim on behalf of SE, from my perspective they tie rewards to increase participation, if that is the case maybe they should make different tiers of rewards one for those that hit top 100 and one for everyone else. Same base concept behind mount, but the top 100 version can be different in some shape or form. I would like to discus other ideas, but how can we do so when people like Ava come out stating that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, and uses the status quo as a reason to keep things the same since any change would detract from the perceived value on the rewards and accomplishment.

As I mentioned before yes those in favor of the current system can use SE past behavior as precedent to defend their position, but that precedent itself does not inherently undermine or make our request moot in this context since we also have precedent showing that if enough people desire something SE sometimes changes their mind. So why shoot down our request, not saying to you should lay down and accept the change, but what gives anyone the right to make the claim that our position is wrong, or in storm's case claim he is immoral because SE has shown how they change their minds. A promise from a company is never set in stone, and can always change. That change is what those that wish for the reward system to change are banking on.

Using SE's current set of values yes our request is less logical but, SE has and can change those values so while the request may seem less reasonable in the current context, who is to say that they will not change their mind if enough people show a desire for a change. In the end we are in agreement that SE can change their values so why should we sit down a accept the current system without even making a request for a change to happen simply because following the current set of values shown by SE our request is not reasonable.