|
Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley
Currently if a gate hooker charges 50g at 20 players go thru 14th and 15th levels only, then they will make over 300,000 gold. There is no reason for this to exist. There is no reason to have that kind of money in Pre. There is no storage. There should be no gate hookers whatsoever.
|
|
Originally Posted by MagmaRed
There are ways to get into the Northlands without a gate hooker. Maybe you could explore those other options. The restricted access has nothing to do with LDoA. It has been there before the title was even a thought in some players mind, or Anets schedule book.
/unsigned And I do not have LDoA, nor do I even have a Pre-searing character. |
|
Originally Posted by phan
Ohh my ; no there is not ; and if you don't have a ps char ; why do you bother posting in here ;
/signed x2 to undo this lad's vote .. |
|
Originally Posted by phan
Ohh my ; no there is not ; and if you don't have a ps char ; why do you bother posting in here ;
/signed x2 to undo this lad's vote .. |
|
Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley
First, in 14 levels I have earned about 12k. No, I did not earn it so I could throw it away on gate hookers. Yes, I find the ability to make money in legitimate ways in GW to be very limited, especially for initial characters. It is not even possible to earn gold as fast as skill points for purchasing skills.
Second, MagmaRed has always been terrified that someone might actually enjoy playing the game by playing instead of setting it to play and abandoning it for hours or days to death leveling. MagmaRed has always oposed anything that would make any part of the LDoA acquisition enjoyable play, so no opposition from MagmaRed at this point has any value to me. They are in the list of people whom I detest for their intense desire to control other people's lives and ensure immoral lessons are mandated in the game. Third, there remains a difference between running which is a way players seek to get someplace they have not earned the right to be in order to access things they have not earned the right to access versus gate hooking. Gate hooking is based upon denying one's same side in the war access to the enemy. It is like charging our troops $50.00 before allowing them to go on patrol. It is like charging the bomb squad $50.00 before allowing them to search for and difuse a terrorist threat. It is like charging the police $50.00 before allowing them to enter a premises and rescue a spouse from abuse. There is a clear ethical distinction between the service of running and the exploitation of gate hooking. I will occasionally assist new players. I even show them how to work in the Northlands, how to pull and pancake, and help them do the quest. All the persons in my alliance are in Post. While I have 2 accounts, I cannot pull up two GW games at the same time. I am not wealthy enough to have a second computer. So, the one way I could be self-sufficient is not possible or allowed. I will not pay a gate hooker for access to our enemies. It is immoral of any of them to even ask for money or aid and abet the enemy by refusing to allow fellow troops access to combat them. I do not expect this to pass. But I will not cease to place it. Nor will my animosity for those who oppose it lesson until they work to get it passed. Once I have achieved the title, or should have if steps are taken to prevent it, I will declare it. And I will permanently and forever hold the immoral possitions of people like MagmaRed in mind. 3N = Never Forget, Never Forgive, Never Again. |
|
Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley
It is like paying our troops $50.00 before they go on patrol. It is like paying the bomb squad $50.00 before they search for and diffuse a terrorist threat. It is like paying the police $50.00 before they enter a premises and rescue a spouse from abuse. There is a clear ethical distinction between the service of running and the exploitation of gate hooking.
|
. Id like to add.|
Originally Posted by Miska Bow
"MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" is /fail and will get you nowhere.
Receiving a moral lecture from someone who calls people "hookers" is priceless. /still not signed. |
|
Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley
JP Morgan was once asked why he thought money so important by a reporter. He responded, "Would you sleep with me for $1,000,000.00?" The reporter said, "Why, yes." Morgan then countered, "Well, how about $50.00?" She said,"Certainly not, what do you think I am?" Morgan concluded,"We have already established that. We are now only haggling over price."
Once my father was in an art show where he displayed a botanical illustration marked NFS (not for sale). A woman walked up with $100.00 bills wrapped so you could read the 100s all the way around the roll. She demanded,"Is the artist present?" My father said,"Yes." She stated,"I scoop out my living room every two years and redecorate it. This painting will be perfect with my new violet decor. How much is it?" My father stated,"It is not for sale." She responded,"Everyman has his price, how much is it young man." My father answered,"Madam, I don't care what house you are use to working This painting is Not for sale!" She did not get to buy the painting. To clarify: There are those who are hookers, strumpets, RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOs, queans, tarts, prostitutes, or whatever you want to call them, and there are those who are not. Hiding from the reality in some vague romance wording will not change the meaning and function of what they are. Second, you are incorrect in your assessment of "My way or the highway." Good pseudo reasoning from someone wishing to deny moral value. It is the right way or you are wrong. Charging troops for access to the enemy is morally repugnant unless your intent is to undermine your efforts and aid and abet the enemy. So, there is either a system to provide access in the right way - or all those who undermine the effort of humans to defend themselves against an agressive enemy species are blood traitors. Doing so through coercion and the feigned provision of good service at a price only adds seasoning to the criminal act. Rushin Roulette, your changes are inaccurate. The money is not payed before the enter, which implies they could enter without paying. The circumstances are that in real life these things are immoral and therefore prevented. But in the game no proper and just social context is considered. What is being paid for is the access - hence allowed passage - not an entry that is otherwise accessible. If this was something that a person could readily do on their own, then it would be a service - not coercive blackmail aimed at withholding accomplishment unless one caves in to the coercion. Your implication is that one can simply enter the northlands without the service. This is not so. The wording I used shows the exact ludicrousness of the immoral act. |
|
Originally Posted by Miska Bow
And the "right way" would be your way, right ?
|
|
Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley
No, the right way is the right way. The right thing for the right reasons. However, in an age when people are tought that any and all forms of discernment are bad becasue they lead to choosing right behavior, and right behaviors must be bad because they do not allow someone to do anything they want at anytime without consideration of the effects, ramifications, or ultimate costs - I can understand the confusion caused by this liberal affliction. I am not subject to it.
Ethical relativity is and always has been a falsehood. Ethical perspective may be relative but what is ethical is not. Hence, what is ethical, which is pre-existent as ethical, is also provable and grants the illusion of post-priori value. However, it is not now nor will it ever be relative. Right remains right. |
