[Issue 42] Why a 40% Off Sale is Better than 50% Off

[JaggyBunnet 80]

Sonofchrysalis3,

 

The reply by Contradiction was deserving. I'm glad he took the time to respond to your often insulting, fabricated, and misleading diatribe. 

 

Or would it be more fitting, (given the fact you presume I'm a child who does nothing except sit on my butt from sunup to sundown) and say.........." You were Owned ! "

 

[sonofchrysalis3 3,719]

Sonofchrysalis3,

 

The reply by Contradiction was deserving. I'm glad he took the time to respond to your often insulting, fabricated, and misleading diatribe. 

 

Or would it be more fitting, (given the fact you presume I'm a child who does nothing except sit on my butt from sunup to sundown) and say.........." You were Owned ! "

Did you happen to see my reply?  :P

[JaggyBunnet 80]

Did you happen to see my reply?  :P

Yes I did see your reply. I read it while "sitting on my butt doing nothing from sun up till sun down". The fact that this is your writing style changes nothing. If a newspaper were to write a slanderous article about someone, and then found themselves in court for those actions. Would the judge then say " You can't be held responsible for your fictitious and derogatory statements, because that is your writing style.  I think not !

 

My judgement still stands.  :P

[sonofchrysalis3 3,719]

And my judgement about the "screaming kid in the checkout line" attitude displayed by the tankers who flamed on the Tanker's Day announcement still stands. They may not, in real life, have been couch potatoes who make no contribution to anything valuable, but they ACTED like it.

 

If a person acts like a two-year-old, he will be treated as a two-year-old.

 

And if a person argues against facts using emotions and no facts, not only is his argument invalid, he winds up looking just a tad silly.

Edited October 20, 2015 by sonofchrysalis3

[JaggyBunnet 80]

 

 

And if a person argues against facts using emotions and no facts, not only is his argument invalid, he winds up looking just a tad silly.

 

You just shot yourself down in flames there, as you did exactly that in your original post. You tried to hit on the emotions of others when you concocted the story about the starving child.......Which was way out of order as there are thousands of children in that very situation around the world, and for you to use that for your own gain is sickening.

 

You also mention having no facts in an argument. Your original post was riddled with fiction......Your attempt to "tug on the heart strings" with the subject I just mentioned was just one instance. 

 

Now you say "They may not, in real life, be couch potatoes who make no contribution to anything valuable, but they acted like it. So according to you, if you complain about something you are a useless good for nothing couch potato! Look up the word "complaint" in the dictionary. Nowhere will you find that definition..........More fiction.

 

So given the fact you argued using emotions and no facts, by your own definition your own argument is invalid, and you have ended up looking a "tad silly"........Your words, not mine. 

[sonofchrysalis3 3,719]

Now you say "They may not, in real life, be couch potatoes who make no contribution to anything valuable, but they acted like it. So according to you, if you complain about something you are a useless good for nothing couch potato! Look up the word "complaint" in the dictionary. Nowhere will you find that definition..........More fiction.

 

So given the fact you argued using emotions and no facts, by your own definition your own argument is invalid, and you have ended up looking a "tad silly"........Your words, not mine. 

I'm going to ignore THIS deliberate misrepresentation of my statement:

 

"So according to you, if you complain about something you are a useless good for nothing couch potato!"

 

Look up the word "complaint" in my response. Nowhere will you find it.

 

I am very particular about what words I use. Had I meant "Complaining is bad for the game", I would have said "Complaining is bad for the game." I didn't say that.

 

My article's original purpose, before it was flamed out of control, was to state two things:

 

1.) The 40% off sale was a good thing and a 50% off sale would've been harmful.

 

2.) There was and is no excuse for the behavior exhibited by the tankers who flamed and trolled the announcement.

 

I must contend that complaints, or, more accurately, CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, is necessary for the evolution of this game. However, when the logic behind the sale was presented over and over again, logic which stated that the game would suffer if the sale was made 50% off, the response was unacceptable. There was an avalanche of hateful screams, even one calling for Semyon Kirov to be fired.

 

The story in which the man loses his job was a hypothetical scenario used to make a point. It is also the only example from my article that is not based on fact; that's why it's a hypothetical.

 

 

And my judgement about the "screaming kid in the checkout line" attitude displayed by the tankers who flamed on the Tanker's Day announcement still stands. They may not, in real life, have been couch potatoes who make no contribution to anything valuable, but they ACTED like it.

 

If a person acts like a two-year-old, he will be treated as a two-year-old.

 

And if a person argues against facts using emotions and no facts, not only is his argument invalid, he winds up looking just a tad silly.

This is not an emotional response. The fact - the flamers behaved like unruly children -  is true.

[canadarules 1,938]

this story is dumb :)

just being honest ok

[sonofchrysalis3 3,719]

this story is dumb :)

just being honest ok

Your honest opinion has been noted....

[JaggyBunnet 80]

Sonofchrysalis3,

 

You can twist what you said, and move the goal posts as many times as you like, it will never change your original post.

 

Oh, and you completely missed my reference as to when you introduced emotion into your own argument. But Oh well, I'm sure you'll figure it out.

 

I'm taking no further part in this conversation as I have a great Hans Christian Andersen book to read.

[jharri19 2]

This article is brilliant, Stratus is right about the 40% sale instead of 50%, as Semyon said, it will ruin Tanki economy, you guys just care about 50% cause there was never a 40% sale before in few years, I guess...

 

Brilliant article Stratus :)

I agree so much. And everyone else prefers the 50, complains about it, and they must learn, the young Padawans they are.

[dragonssk1 334]

You should rethink your motives in life OP.

Edited October 21, 2015 by dragonssk1

[dragonssk1 334]

@Meliora, why the hate? :/ In my opinion, if you like an article, say something nice, if you don't, don't say anything at all. (Note: That rule doesn't apply to Tanki's updates :P)

---

 

"Why a 40% Off Sale is Better Than a 50% Off Sale"

It isn't.

 

 

Nah, just kiddin', nice article bro.

 

 

I can say whatever my mind speaks. It is not offensive and the world we live in is not all "sunshines and rainbows." Criticism is good and I believe that the message and logic behind this article is mind baffling stupid.

[dragonssk1 334]

Also, this is one of the worse articles I've read from the Newspaper. It really dashed my hopes.

[Baby_Sam 614]

I agree so much. And everyone else prefers the 50, complains about it, and they must learn, the young Padawans they are.

You guys are offensive. We did not use descriptive words about you because, even if we did, you would not get it.

[cutesarthak 2]

What do you mean ? We should thank tanki that we can make an account and play for free ? come on man wake up it just a simple business technique to increase the number of players in the game so that the game become popular and more people buy crystals. For instance if tanki charge money for making account or using it for a particular period of time so the situation will be like this

Today if 5 million accounts have been created(I don't know exact figure) but if tanki charges money for making an account then not more than 1 million account would be created.similarly if today 60,000-75,000 players are online but if tanki charges money for playing for a certain time period not more than 30,000 players would be online.

[IVIr.Catalyst 1,035]

I dont think Semyon will get married and have a kid though....No offense just my opinion

Edited October 21, 2015 by IVIr.Catalyst

[rayaanMALHOTRA 378]

where is the downvote button for this topic ?

[shadewarttt 3,350]

So you're telling me more than a few hours of free service would make Alternativa Platform i.e a 10 mil dollar company go bankrupt? A bit of an over exaggeration on the that part I'd say. 

[sonofchrysalis3 3,719]

So you're telling me more than a few hours of free service would make Alternativa Platform i.e a 10 mil dollar company go bankrupt? A bit of an over exaggeration on the that part I'd say. 

Multiply that free service times an innumerable amount of players, and the company will take a significant financial hit, like a grocery store that suddenly halved all of its prices for a day. Mobs of customers would flood in, and, well....

 

No more grocery store.

[TriNitroToIuene 4,765]

To those people who cite 'freedom of speech' as an excuse to insult/berate/criticize this article (I dunno, take your pic of the magnitude of the word), let me tell you this - is Tanki a dictatorship? Is it forcing you to play? NO.

 

Then why, why, why do you keep posting stuff like 'Tanki is out to swindle our money?'  YOU are the ones who are spending money in it, and Tanki doesn't exist for YOU, and you alone - it exists for the whole community, and if it has to have enough funds to roll out the next major update, cost-cutting is a must. You can scream all the threats you want about leaving the game, but it won't matter. Why? You are playing this game out of your own free will.

 

And I don't understand this hype about 50% sales. What about when we had 25% discounts? Or the 31% last halloween? 40% seems pretty good compared to that, and you do get stuff pretty cheap.

[GoldRock 6,165]

So, why must we all provide, calm, nice-ified 'constructive criticism' to a mean, harsh, insulting article?

 

Write harsh article, get harsh feedback. Nothing wrong with that.

This just shows exactly that you don't understand the meaning of the word 'constructive'. Was this article written in a calm or nice tone? Nope. Was it harsh? It was quite harsh in its tone in some of the points it was making, yes.

 

Does that the fact that it may be taken as mean or insulting by some mean that it merits a barrage of insults and flaming in response? No. Was there constructive content in this article? Yes - and whatever the nature or tone of the feedback given, a good reader would respect that and at least try to fight the harsh, unsympathetic subtance that Stratus provided with well, substance.

Edited October 22, 2015 by GoldRock

[LaserShark 2,095]

This just shows exactly that you don't understand the meaning of the word 'constructive'. Was this article written in a calm or nice tone? Nope. Was it harsh? It was quite harsh in its tone in some of the points it was making, yes.

 

Does that the fact that it may be taken as mean or insulting by some mean that it merits a barrage of insults and flaming in response? No. Was there constructive content in this article? Yes - and whatever the nature or tone of the feedback given, a good reader would respect that and at least try to fight the harsh, unsympathetic subtance that Stratus provided with well, substance.

I would have to disagree with you, this article is not constructive, it is merely an opinionated rant, equal to "Shut up and take whatever rubbish Tanki throws at you, or your a whining crybaby." The only way to properly deal with articles written in a harsh, disrespectful tone, would be to remove or edit them, but since the newspaper seems to encourage this kind of "ranticle", it will receive nothing but equally harsh feedback.

[GoldRock 6,165]

I would have to disagree with you, this article is not constructive, it is merely an opinionated rant, equal to "Shut up and take whatever rubbish Tanki throws at you, or your a whining crybaby."...

I think you just kinda defeated your own argument there. Any competent reader could see that the article is not equal to what you've just said there, otherwise the article would read:

 

---

 

Why a 40% Off Sale is Better than 50% Off

 

Shut up and take whatever rubbish Tanki throws at you, or your a whining crybaby.

 

---

 

Even if you find the tone derogatory, it cannot be reasonably denied that it contains some constructive points to back up its viewpoints. The fact that this article is clearly so very different to the above makes me worry just how biased or prejudiced a reader has to be so that once 'offended' by a viewpoint or the way in which it is presented, he/she will say anything and everything to put that viewpoint down.

[Cor7y 13,862]

My dear tankers, it is a FACT that a 40% sale is NOT better a 50% sale, and NEVER will be. I have absolutely no idea why sonofchrysalis3 named the topic like that :unsure:

[dragonssk1 334]

To those people who cite 'freedom of speech' as an excuse to insult/berate/criticize this article (I dunno, take your pic of the magnitude of the word), let me tell you this - is Tanki a dictatorship? Is it forcing you to play? NO.

 

Then why, why, why do you keep posting stuff like 'Tanki is out to swindle our money?'  YOU are the ones who are spending money in it, and Tanki doesn't exist for YOU, and you alone - it exists for the whole community, and if it has to have enough funds to roll out the next major update, cost-cutting is a must. You can scream all the threats you want about leaving the game, but it won't matter. Why? You are playing this game out of your own free will.

 

And I don't understand this hype about 50% sales. What about when we had 25% discounts? Or the 31% last halloween? 40% seems pretty good compared to that, and you do get stuff pretty cheap

The only reason we are giving hate to this article is the title. 50% sales ARE better than 40% sales.