Let’s apply the logic of the “Don’t want it, don’t use it” to other contexts.
Let’s say Blizzard was to implement a Cash shop where you can buy BiS gear. That’s right, you want those cool gloves? They are on sales for 50$. Or that cool Epic weapon from the latest raid tier? Get it for 250$ Or better yet, get Shadowmorn for 750$!
But hey, you always have the option to just go the “old school” way and raid and hope that you win a roll to get that stuff. You don’t want the cash shop? Just don’t use it! Boom, it does now affect you in any way shape or form.
I guess that would make sense to anyone saying “Don’t want RDF, just don’t use it”?
So you are admitting that RDF is so much better and a superior system that its basically the equivalent of straight up buying gear and you MUST use it to succeed? Alright, we better add it then. Its better after all.
Yawnnnnnn, you copy pasted your trash analogy, i’ll copy paste my reply.
What I had in mind was the RDF in wrath which was server-specific. Adding cross-server is bad unless you’re on an underpopped which, tbh, you shouldn’t be playing on if you want to find dungeons.
The daily rewards and teleportation are arbitrary imo… Though zoning back to where you entered in queue could be a bad thing I guess…
Solution would be that you teleport TO the dungeon but it doesn’t automatically port you back to your spot. All this would do is keep people from having to get to the summoning stone first which, as far as I can tell, is purely just a QoL change.
what line? there is no line to be drawn. RDF gives players more access to content they enjoy doing without eliminating any content, especially not endgame, for anyone
alright… so you can use that logic when you want, but at some undetermined point of scale, it becomes unusable because it’s too much, but no way to understand where I guess.
Already told you yesterday. The line is RDF. In Cataclysm the line will be LFR.
But of course you have no interest in actual answers to your slippery slope argument, because you think it’s some kind of “gotcha” moment. It’s a question you’ve posed in bad faith, just like this entire post.
I’m not dismissing the comment, i’m digging to figure out where the line is where we can’t use the “don’t want it, don’t use it” argument, because it is one that I can’t get behind personaly. I’m trying to figure out where is it meaningful to use this argument, and where it isnt. Still havnt got any answer on that…
Trying to find this imaginary line of yours by taking the logic to an illogical extreme is not “constructive discussion and debate”
You come off as the same sort of person that accuses someone of being racist because they say they “hate black” (aka going first) in the context of playing checkers
Not my job to read every thread for you. I’ve outlined my arguments many, many times.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just selfishness. They don’t want RDF, period, and they say whatever they feel will move the game closer to that end or keep the game from moving farther away from it. Doesn’t take some premeditated group action to achieve this; overdeveloped self-interest and a willingness to be hypocritical on an individual level is all it takes.
He said, when I’ve answered him in both this thread and a thread from yesterday. Clearly Sethyl is acting in good faith here and not “asking questions” in the sense that he’s cosplaying Glenn Beck.
So this entire thread is another form of dishonest debate (embodied by the quoted excerpt), and something that people with extreme positions use quite frequently. You take an extreme position, and then engage in bad faith repeatedly. You then pretend like you are overly concerned with finding some “reasonable middle ground”. You then continue to be obtuse and disingenuous, and pretend like the reasonable exhaustion (from dealing with your bad faith argumentation) of the opposing side is somehow indicative of them being unreasonable.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
And make no mistake, though the immediate stakes are non-existent here the consequences of this type of interlocution are very real no matter where it’s used.
WTF does this have anything to do with RDF? It seems like people who are pro-RDF cant have a debate without it turning personal becoming a poop-slinging fiasco.
I ask you to explain your reasonings and you don’t explain anything… How is anyone going to take anything you say seriously if you can’t even defend your own broken logic? You just make your own argument look worse.
i’m sorry we have a tough time getting to a constructive space.