Player account organisation

[Arthur]

the united states doesn't have psycho-laws

Hahahahahaha! This statement alone renders your argument as invalid, sir.

[MyEmail]

Even if the US had psycho laws it doesn't change the fact that "going to court in order to not have to give someone a service" is a psycho-law too :P.

[charlie]

I can't prove you wrong MyEmail. 1) You are not open to accepting you are wrong. 2) I'm not going to start a service with an approach that would fail just to prove you wrong. When I dare you to prove me wrong, it is because you can try to implement your idea. How can I implement anything that would counter your idea? It makes no sense for you to say this. Most of what you say makes no sense though.

You literally make things up. You don't know you do it. It is not possible to have a sensible discussion with you.

You can not arbitrarily fine a player $50 and expect that they will pay it. There is no real world way to enforce this. You do not see this.

You can not expect a player with bad intentions will not be able to get around feeble attempts to prevent multiple accounts. You do not see this.

End of the conversation.

[MyEmail]

No Charlie, you just overlook the good parts and are overly scrupulous on the bad. You blow things out of proportion saying people are going to go to extremely drastic measures solely because a video-game account was deactivated. You illustrate extreme worst-case scenarios instead of real-world scenarios. You berate me with all this even when other ideas from other users suffer from similar or the same problems. But you seem intent on ignoring everybody but me in an attempt to sabatoge any decent ideas rather than providing ways to make them better.

In case you haven't noticed throughout this entire "chat" I have been revising my ideas and adding new ones to it, which should be more than enough for you to realize that I know I am not entirely correct, which is the entire reason why I am debating--to get better ideas. If you need me to blatantly bow at you feet and beg forgiveness for my sins your barking up the wrong tree.

Now, I have started another thread because I think this one has become polluted with the politics of "lets bring MyEmail down", and the original value of my argument was lost in the chaos of arguing mute points. Here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1853&start=0

Oh, and charlie, although I cannot enforce it I simply request you not post in my new thread unless you can be constructive and find ways to better the idea, rather than find ways to tear it down and berate the user. Thank you .

[charlie]

In case you haven't noticed throughout this entire "chat" I have been revising my ideas.

You have, to your credit, revised your ideas. The thing is, you don't mention when doing so. You just declare people who a different viewpoint "wrong". As an example you have revised your fining system to a re-activation fee (which sounds much better and more reasonable). However I don't recall reading a single word of acceptance that the fining of people was impossible to police. I know that an activation fee is, in practical terms, basically the same but it is a totally different perspective. You changed this perspective whilst still maintaining your original stance, and this unbending determination to be perceived as "correct" is what is rubbing people (and I'm not the only one) up the wrong way.

Case in point, you have put so much energy in to declaring that you can take arbitrary sums of money out of people's cards/accounts, then switched your viewpoint without conceding anything. It's just... I don't feel this is a discussion. You're just revising your position without acknowledging the constructive points others make. You're like a politician, you change your position but you won't publicly say you did so. It is infuriating.

[MyEmail]

I will admit I have been defensive but IMO it was totally justified. I was listing countless ideas--both good and bad--in order to generate a viable solution for anti-hacking. Rather than having a decent discussion and focusing on the good ideas in order to make them better, everyone here dedicated their sole existence to "prove me wrong".

I think people here just lack proper debating form. We aren't here to agree on everything or to admit who is right or wrong, we are here to find common ground that provides a viable anti-hacking solution. This is because 2 people, no matter how alike, will never agree on everything. Instead of one forcing their views on the other they instead build off of common ground to achieve mutually-beneficial status.

Likewise in a debate, nobody is ever going to agree an everything. Trying to prove someone wrong or make them agree with your point of view is futile and in most cases impossible. Instead you work together to find common-grounds you can both agree on that fits both your point-of-views.

But no, everyone here is more interested in proving me wrong than trying to find a good solution we can all agree on. In my countless attempts to find common ground--by presenting new and supplementary ideas--you instead interpreted it as "avoiding admitting I was wrong".

I haven't admitted I was wrong or uttered a "single word of acceptance that the fining of people was impossible to police" because it is irrelevant to the topic and end result. Like I have mentioned, we are here to find common-grounds to produce an anti-hacking solution--not to prove "MyEmail" wrong.

Furthermore I honestly believe you can police fines--Is an activation fee not a method of policing fines? And is it not a viable method that even you can agree will work? Like I have said many times, its about finding common ground and I have finally managed to find some despite your efforts to sabatoge and "prove me wrong".

[charlie]

I'm not trying to sabotage you, nor particularly interested in proving you wrong. I simply pointed out your plan to fine people directly was flawed and you rejected the input and conducted a huge argument (YOU conducted the argument, nobody else) trying to show how you can steal money from players you suspect to be hackers.

Your revised approach (in the new thread) made for much better reading, even if you did fail to acknowledge that the disagreements forced you reconsider some very initially poor positions.

You sabotage yourself by being so bloody minded. Lots of people want to give constructive input but how can we? We're always wrong unless we agree with you?

[MyEmail]

Lol! Sorry, but your last post made me laugh, hands-down. Everything you just posted fit into one of these scenarios:

1. You where blatantly lying.
2. You where in direct opposition to your previous statements (its called Hypocrisy my friend).
3. You completely misunderstood my last post.
4. You where throwing blatant insults again (I find it amusing ).

I would outline each instance specifically but I think it would only fan the flames. Like I said in my previous post my goal hasn't been to prove who is right and who is wrong or to force my opinion on you (which, for some reason is what you are constantly accusing me of). Instead I have been working to find common-grounds we can both mutually agree on. Now that I have found those common grounds (reactivation fees) there is no longer any need for me to argue your useless, mute points.

That aside, lets get back on topic where we left off--preventing hackers by deactivating accounts and charging reactivation fees. May I make a request? Lets set aside the attempts to to prove me wrong, and lets focus on bettering the idea shall we?

What could be some pitfalls? Perhaps supplementary ideas to compound and make this better? Or maybe a discussion on how much a reactivation fee should be is in order?

[FreakNigh]

I think I can speak frankly without worrying about you destroying the thread anymore.

4. You where throwing blatant insults again (I find it amusing ).

Charlie wants you to [expletive removed] man, he's being incredibly patient and your being incredibly stupid to not notice. You don't deserve to be acknowledged anymore. No one here should have to explain themselves to you. You had your time and space to talk about your ideas, we understand your view point now shut up about it. From what I can tell everyone's been incredibly kind and has tried to help you improve your ability to participate but it was futile.

Lets set aside the attempts to to prove me wrong, and lets focus on bettering the idea shall we?

You're not the god of the forum or thread. "We" don't want you holding our hands every step of the way through the discussion. Are you retarded? Who are you anyways, we don't know if your just some brat kid in a basement man and you should be smart enough to know that we don't know that and then act accordingly.

(Im in India right now) Your like a beggar kid who will not go away, at this point we need to just mature up and be like "ok kid, I even gave you some change when I shouldn't have, I'm not going to just keep giving you money because your asking for it, now go away before I have to get angry".

[charlie]

It would cost 99¢ to get an account that way your method of payment would be recorded. Because of this you get hammered with the $50 hacking fine whether or not you create a new account.

Its easy to enforce. The 99ct account fee is so that the server has a ligament form of payment recorded from which it can automatically charge fees if the user is flagged as a hacker.

Lets outline a few common-sense scenarios in real-life examples where people are Ok [with variable charges]:

1. Overdraft fees on credit/debit cards.
2. Other monthly and annual fees on credit/debit services.
3. Monthly subscriptions with auto-renewal features.
4. Violation of a homeowners association contract.
5. The list goes on, and on, and on.

Even IF you can't charge their card, you can still use the countless other supplementary methods I have provided. Here is another one: Ban their credit-card until they do pay the fine. If they signup under another card they will just get banned again, and the process will repeat itself until they run out of credit cards. In the end they must either A) be permanently banned or B) pay the fee.

So you argued in ignorance against everybody on the thread (I didn't realise how many people were correcting you...) and then revised your position and we are all still wrong in your eyes.

That's why we're getting pissed off. You're right as far as you concerned, we're all wrong, you argue until everybody is pissed off, revise your position, then we're still wrong. I mean... W... T... F...

And now you think I'm a blatant liar. Whatever man. I'll just enjoy my life and ignore you from now on, we'll both be happier.

[charlie]

I'll just add one last thing. Take this or don't take it.

True wisdom is in knowing and accepting that which you do not know.

[MyEmail]

From what I can tell everyone's been incredibly kind and has tried to help you improve your ability to participate but it was futile.

That is the exact opposite of what you have been doing, and you know it, and everyone else knows it.

we don't know if your just some brat kid in a basement man and you should be smart enough to know that we don't know that and then act accordingly.

I could ask you the same thing. From your horrible posts in the other thread (and your response to the criticism) I assumed as such and still do until undeniable proof is provided.

You don't deserve to be acknowledged anymore.

Lets see here... Looking at your previous posts, what have you contributed to this thread? Have you posted any ideas? Perhaps revised others' ideas? Maybe you have done something other than argue with me? Hmmm... Nope. I have actually contributed here, and I am the one that doesn't deserve to be acknowledged anymore? *ahem*

Your like a beggar kid who will not go away

And you are not? Do you not keep coming back to this thread even as I do?

revised your position and we are all still wrong in your eyes.

You have already recognized that I have admitted being incorrect, and now you claim otherwise? Which is it charlie?


I have outlined this point three times, so if you still don't get it there is something seriously wrong with you (handicapped, immature, etc--take your pick). Lets just hope you get it this time and that is not the case . In fact, I will bold it to help you understand. I HAVEN"T BEEN HERE TO DECIDE WHO IS WRONG, AND COULDN'T CARE LESS--I HAVE BEEN HERE TO FIND MUTUAL GROUND WE CAN AGREE ON.

and then revised your position

I revised the implementation of my idea, not the actual idea--it has always stayed as "fining hackers for hacking".

And now you think I'm a blatant liar. Whatever man.

That's because you are. You claimed you weren't here to prove me wrong, yet I can quote atleast a dozen instances from your posts that prove otherwise. You say one thing in one post, then completely contradict it in another (I can think of at least 4 instances).

That's why we're getting pissed off. You're right as far as you concerned, we're all wrong

See, that's where the problem lies. I can't speak for everyone, but definitely you (charlie) and FreakNigh are both too immature to handle debating, which is why stuff like this happens. Heck, you don't even know the goal or procedure for debating even though I have outlined it in a previous post. You are still caught up on "who's wrong and who's right", when that is totally irrelevant to the end goal of finding a mutually-agreeable solution. I even outlined how its futile to try and force your views on someone and prove who is right, which is why in a debate you look for common-ground you both agree on. But your still stuck on "MyEmail thinks he is right and we are all wrong!". You know what? Boo-hooo, go cry to your mom. Maybe she will be able to get the point across to your infantile brain.

[FreakNigh]

From what I can tell there was a legitimate argument between you and charlie and you both were "missing the point". That doesn't make you correct but who cares. Then you both "weren't thinking it through". That particular back and forth broke down and you threw the first insult with "Most of what you are arguing is IMHO contrary to the most basic common sense". With no insults returned from charlie, you insult him the second time with "Either your not thinking it through, or your a ten year old who doesn't know what he is talking about. I hope for the former...". Then you both were "proving each other wrong".

Also Charlie tried to end the back and forth with you 3 times...
[*] "I can't be bothered with this conversation any more. ... /c out"
[*] "End of the conversation."
[*] "I'll just enjoy my life and ignore you from now on, we'll both be happier."

I'll be honest, we don't seem to be able to figure out a way to end direct confrontation with you. So if you want to continue with the thread as if we were never here then I hope you can do so.

[MyEmail]

I'll be honest, we don't seem to be able to figure out a way to end direct confrontation with you.

Its easy--quit posting. Each of charlie's alleged attempts where both fake, in an attempt to "get the last word in" and goad me into a response. It takes two to argue my friend.

And actually, if you really want to point fingers this all can be traced back to you FreakNigh. The conversation was perfectly normal and on-topic until your post with this quote:

I'm speaking strictly from real life experience so hold your tongue and don't even respond directly to me if that is what you have to do

And my alleged "insults" you claim I made where subtle, directed at his arguments, and gave him a way to deny and/or avoid them, aka they where inciters to give him personal incentive to debate. Yours & his where blatant full-on insults directed specifically at me, not my arguments. There is a big, big difference .

[charlie]

Thread locked due to it bottoming out as a flame war. Should've been locked sooner, but I didn't want to appear to be abusing my status.

EDIT: no, one more thing before it gets locked. MyEmail, I want you to point out concisely where I blatantly lied, was in direct opposition to my previous statements, and throwing blatant insults.

Otherwise I will request another moderator read this thread and consider your behaviour.

an attempt to "get the last word in" and goad ... a response

1. You where blatantly lying.
2. You where in direct opposition to your previous statements (its called Hypocrisy my friend).
3. You completely misunderstood my last post.
4. You where throwing blatant insults again (I find it amusing ).

[MyEmail]

@charlie: I am not going to list them because you already know, and you will simply close the thread and get the last word in. Oh, and I have absolutely no issues with another moderator looking over this thread--be my guest. In fact, please do have another moderator overlook this.

@new moderator: When moderating please keep my point of view in mind:

1. I have been working to find common ground--not to prove who is wrong or right (despite what the others may construe me as doing).
2. Deviations from the topic (including flaming) where in response to the excessively negative criticism I received.

Evidence that I am not the (entire) issue can be found at the beginning of the topic. You can see Julius and I where having a civil conversation (he being capable of having one, unlike the other users), and it was completely on topic and flame-free. Then I was met by posts from both FreakNigh and Charlie that where deliberately derogative. As you can see, the conversation was perfectly normal until these two joined with their bad-manners. Here are quotes from their first post which I found particularly bad:



I'm speaking strictly from real life experience so hold your tongue and don't even respond directly to me if that is what you have to do




You take a complex problem and put a simple slant on it.




You missed the point. Enforcing rules is not as simple as simply thinking them up.



After that I attempted one more "nice" post, but was met with more derogative trolling. I even made a request for them to stop but they merely ignored it and continued. After that everything just melts into chaos as you can see . I made one final attempt to get back on topic by forking this thread and starting a new one (one that isn't filled with all this flaming-garbage), but they just kept going.

From my point of view I have been looking for a solution we can all agree on, but was met with excessively negative criticism and derogative trolling from Charlie and FreakNigh (more especially Charlie). Any irrational action(s) on my part where in response to them and their unnecessary opposition to me.

I appreciate your unbiased view of the situation and look forward to your verdict.

[Your Mother]

I don't care who started it! Cut out the fighting that instant!

Be nice and don't take people being mean as a permission to be mean yourself! Get an adult instead.

[FreakNigh]

I would really like to see a formal decision made. It's torture to watch him baiting to start his "debates" in other posts and to hear he purposefully uses "inciters" to get it started. Either formally let him behave this way or don't.

[charlie]

I'm locking this. I apologize for feeding the troll.

[qubodup]

Personal attacks and rudeness are not acceptable and will result in bans.

Sorry for allowing the rudeness to escalate. Next time we will be quicker and next time we will ban in an instant.