Not only are you wrong, but if you were right, there’d be no reason to request them.
You’re in a catch-22 here. Either “guild banks don’t change the social/gameplay experience” and therefore aren’t needed, or “guild banks make life easier and prevent ‘scams and ToS violations’ and therefore should be added.”
Sounds like guild banks change a lot. It’s silly to say that they don’t have any social/gameplay implications. It’s just flat untrue to suggest it.
He’ll just pull a Ziryus and define “core game play” in such a narrow way that what he wants falls outside his definition of “core game play”.
I see you put your parachute pants on to start break dancing too.
I said:
Can see you went to Ratsy School of Discussion for The Gifted.
Purposely misquoting someone to change the context of what they said?
Tsk tsk.
Next.
Did you just try to insinuate that parachute pants aren’t incredibly cool? SHAME
Yes they change a lot in a positive way that doesn’t impact core gameplay.
Not at all. I had a pair too.
You’ll have to scroll up and read everything to follow along.
In a nutshell though Fez is break dancing around questions. Again.
Quite entertaining.
His version of the worm is pretty dope.
Oh look! Now he’s doing a headspin! Go Fez Go!
Are you saying that as fact? Seems like your opinion
Ahhh missed all that lol
Correct and why this is a discussion.
Here’s an idea: Give guild banks one server. It can be an RP-PVP-GB server. I’d create a character just to see Padre make posts like
The hooves of the skeletal horse upon which Padre sat clattered on the stone floor of the castle. From the horse’s mouth 2Pac’s “All Eyes On Me” blared through the night sky as a pull on the reins caused the hydraulics installed on the steed’s bony frame raised and lowered its body. If nobody came to acknowledge his arrival, he would make sure they knew what he wanted to hear: The champion had arrived.
I’m not, but when other people say “blizzard said” this is the counter to that.
Blizzard said does not add up to what they are doing. Thus blizzard saying something does not prevent discussion on adding things when they went against their own words.
If that is truly the case and you are not trying to use them as precedents, I would expect that you will no longer be bringing up those other changes.
I’m sure that you, and other pro guild bank advocates, will continue to being those changes up as precedents for your desired non vanilla QOL convenience change of guild banks, though.
I also do not expect those who continue to bring up those changes as precedents for further non vanilla changes to have the honesty to admit that they are trying to use them as precedents and they are treading down that slippery slope they claim does not exist.
This is one of the best ideas i have seen posted.
Absolutely support this.
Thanks muh dude.
With an appraising eye Padre asseses his latest fan and nods his approval
Good RP btw.
I haven’t once used them as a reason to add guild banks, I have used them to counter the ‘reason’ to not add guild banks of ‘blizzard said’.
giving an example of blizzard going agaist their own words on what classic will be is not to prove something should be added, but to prove that it wont be 100% vanilla and some things are being added, thus blizzard saying something does not hold a 100% value to stop a change, but their actions do.
Many of those who desire the non vanilla QOL convenience change of guild banks seem to think that “some things are being added” sets a precedent for further non vanilla QOL convenience changes, including the non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks.
That is the slippery slope.
BTW, you never told us all exactly what a zeliot is. What exactly is a zeliot?
Ok, I used the wrong word. ![:flushed:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/flushed.png?v=6" ":flushed:")
Now that that’s out of the way, you understood what I was getting at.
And no. I did not use it was an argument for slippery slope. I tried to use it to illustrate the irrefutable. Unsuccessfully apparently. What I was driving at is once a non-vanilla change is added, the experience loses it’s authenticity. Temporary sharding (while not confirmed), would alter the experience. Loot trading (while likely) would also alter the experience. Now add guild banks. And again, you have morphed the original game into now something very clearly not original.
So, now that we’ve sacrificed our mission to recreate, what’s next?
Where do you draw your next line in the sand? “Authentic as possible” was the line Blizzard drew. Now we’re asking them to move it “just this once”…again. As if this would be the last time. ![:roll_eyes:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/roll_eyes.png?v=6" ":roll_eyes:")
Slippery Slope may or may not be a fallacy. However. It doesn’t apply. We aren’t talking about a triggered chain of events. We’re talking about people QQ for what they want. It’s always been that.
Zeliot is my word for
Zealot+idiot.
People who speak loudly and passionately on a subject while having 0 facts or a clue on what they are talking about and show no desire to discuss the topic, but instead just try to out shout the opposing view.
That’s literally the slippery slope fallacy.
“If this small thing happens then the world will end!”
Changes should never be added because another change happened, they should each be discussed on their own merits.
So, you’re making up words now?
And you want to call out someone who does not blindly agree with your desire for the non vanilla QOL convenience for a mispelled word?
You can intentionally and deliberately misrepresent the slippery slope all you want. That does not change the slippery slope.
The slippery slope is NOT “If this small thing happens then the world will end!”
It is “If this small thing happens, it sets a precedent for the next small thing and it becomes more likely that the next small thing will happen.”
Note, that is NOT “If A happens, then B will absolutely happen”. Once again, it is “If A happens, it sets a precedent for B to happen and it becomes more likely that B will happen.”
You already KNOW that, though, which is why you continually use those other non vanilla changes as precedents for your desired non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks being added to classic. It is also why you continue to intentionally and deliberately misrepresent the slippery slope.