hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian
-
Posts
80 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian
-
-
8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:
So, you're saying they're men, right?
Just curious, where are you going with that? What's the point you're trying to make?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:
What we'll be looking for, and I can say we since we've discussed it, is merchants willing to sell their items in normal vendors, or on mp, at reasonable prices (read: affordable within our individual budgets, reasonable being subjective and all), and not just in sets, fatpacks, exclusives, etc.etc..
YES, YES!, YES, YES, OOOOOOOOO YES!!!!!
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, AriaMoonlit said:
Yeah the whole trying to find a way around the ban is awful. Though ,what price is TOO MUCH for a fatpack?
Creators - and by extension us consumers - are about to find out. I, too, am looking forward to September, but I'm also a bit nervous. 10,000L$ for a fatpack? Hell no. Thing is, at that price, creators don't need that many customers, and I have no doubt they will find them. So...too bad for the rest of us?
-
7 minutes ago, Mollymews said:
the athletes that got excluded from the Olympics because testosterone even when they had the 'correct' body bits was really puzzling for me. Same with Simone Bile's had the difficulty rating for some of her moves downgraded (more than for same moves in the men's competition) because the gymnastics federation didn't think it was fair on the other women competitors who couldn't do them
That's interesting, I didn't know that.
As far as I'm concerned, we as a society need far more conversations around the issues.
-
5 minutes ago, Mollymews said:
this is a limiting statement. "Except that he ...". "Except that they ..." is non-limiting
I just wanted to say I don't understand the above line. I could have used a "confused" emoji face on your post, but that felt a bit too dismisssive.
Also wanted to add - maybe instead of having 2 categories based on sex, there could be a range of categories based on more specific criteria specific to the given sport. In weightlifting, weight and muscle density for example.
-
1 hour ago, Mollymews said:
the actual issue is: Should a society limit a person to their physical body parts that they were born with?
if yes then that's the end of any debate
if No except for this, and except for that and maybe this and maybe that then there is a debate
for me, i start with No society shouldn't and want to hear arguments for why Yes might be the case for the exceptions
Who's limiting? Laurel Hubbard could have competed in the men's category (except that he probably wouldn't have qualified).
There's a reason most sports are sex-segregated.
We probably need a third category, but I doubt that's workable. -
3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:
Majority of the complaints I have seen in this thread seem to be more about some creators going overboard on the odds of getting a rare rather than about the moral implications of gambling. Maybe there needs to be some regulation rather than stopping that marketing technique altogether.
Well, I kinda agree with that bit at least to an extent, but I guess it's easier to have a sledgehammer approach. And the regulation that's coming is to stop that way of selling entirely. But wether I agree or not is irrelevant, anyway. The regulatory environment is what it is, and LL have to err on the side of caution, it'd be commercial suicide on their part not to.
-
9 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:
Four pulls @25L each and I had a really nice skirt and 3 different tops that went with it. Another pull on a cute hair and I scored the rare option and received the hair with all the color huds. So for a 125L$, I picked up what would have cost me a minimum of 1500L$ had I been able to buy single items rather than a forced Fat packs for any of them.
I really don't know what the supposed gamble is. Each item in that gacha outfit was worth quite a bit more that the 25L$ that I spent for each pull. And I can even resell them if I get bored with it. This is so win/win, i really don't see the issue.
Yeah, but you could have gotten 4 of the same tops, all the same colour. At average (old) gacha prices, that would be around betwen 250l$ and 500 L$. For one top. If you're lucky, you're happy with the colour. (If you're not...tough luck, eh?)
Which you might still deem good value, and that's your prerogative. But you had no way to know. How is that not a gamble???
-
Wanna bet?
-
4
-
-
14 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:
I've been doing that since before gachas were ever on the grid. Now fatpacks are being priced higher than I can afford and they were already out of my reach for the most part. I don't see where I am going to have much of a choice in the future.
The rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. That's some legacy to leave behind.
Buy full perm models and make it yours with your own textures? Full perm models are not just for reselling.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:
Why not just call it what it is? They got greedy. And LL is letting them get away with it because LL is greedy, too.
But that is good news for a handful. The rest of us just have to suck it up or take our money elsewhere. I have neither so I'm not sure wth people like me are supposed to do. Die of sheer boredom I guess.
Maybe. Possibly. But you never know what somebody's circumstances are. Maybe they needed the money to pay for medical bills, or something. (Then again, of course, maybe not.)
Money's nice. Honestly, if I was them and had found a way to make lots of (relatively speaking) money... I'm not sure I wouldn't do it. Though I hope I'd be smart enough to have a backup plan (and a high interest savings account...not there are any of those left...)
-
1
-
-
I'm neither a gacha seller or a gacha customer, but I'm willing to bet the honest answer is: because they can make (far?) more money that way. I don't know how much more, but I must say this thread has been quite the eye opener...
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, AriaMoonlit said:
[...] Getting around the ban is a mess.
That's not a bad thing, I think. For me as a buyer, it's much nicer to be able to buy the item I want without faffing about with random outcomes. I do think it could have been achieved by mandating that anything that could be bought from a gacha should also be on sale in the regular way (at a reasonable price - and I'm aware that "reasonable" is a subjective term). Seems to me that would please both the set of people who enjoy the gambling aspect and those who don't, but, eh, I don't make the rules.
-
1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:
There are lessons creators can learn from gachas going forward.
We like collecting junk.
We like trading junk.
We like a low cost to entry.
I propose the lucky vendor.
A simple, single product vendor. It contains all the items from a set, and periodically (not dependent on shoppers) switches the item being sold to a different one selected from the list randomly based on the same weighed chance gachas used (Say, every 4 hours). The item remains up for the set period of time before switching out to a new one. Every item is the same price. Shoppers are limited to how many copies of the item they can purchase in any one session.
Because this isn't a game, it's just artificial scarcity, it doesn't fall victim to any of the outlawed gacha mechanics and products could remain transfer enabling the secondary market.
Keeping an eye on vendors, checking back regularly, visiting "lucky events" more than once, pile ons when the rare appears, all the crazy fun stuff that drives engagement.
And I'd add: prices not to be more than - say - 10L or 20L or something equally low, to minimise losses to the buyer. How's that?
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, AriaMoonlit said:
[...] now people will be forced to buy an item they see clearly , only to make the next item available for purchase. [...]
No they won't. They have a choice. If they want to, they can just walk away and come back later to see if the item they want is the current one. Kinda like checking a lucky chair to see if your letter is now showing. (That's in the stores... at events, I would imagine the queue would move quite briskly. In fact, as has been pointed in the thread by several people, events could become a clusterf.... quite quickly.... But that's another issue.)
I'd be interested to know whether the new system will have a periodic built in reshuffling of the queue, though, and at what interval. Otherwise, it's bound to get stuck on some items, which is good for neither the seller or the buyer.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:
I hate all of the various social media things. I think my hate is partly because I am afraid I will not get many likes and it will simply confirm that self-conscious part of me that feels very worthless. That may also be why I have turned off notifications here in the forums for post reactions and I usually avoid checking reactions to my posts.
I can TOTALLY relate to that. I'd write TOTALLY in even bigger letters if I could!
-
2
-
-
31 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:
For many even posting in this or other hot threads is a Dopamine hit. When you get right down to it, most people spend time in S/L activities for what it does to them on an emotional level. If we are going to start banning certain activities because we don't approve of someone's serotonin, dopamine adrenaline, testerone etc etc spike, then just close S/L and every other game out there. Picking on one only is hypocritical.
Not to mention a big part of social media. "How many likes did I get for that instagram post?" 345648484 likes. OMG!!!!! I'm the best! What, zero likes. No, no, no, no, that can't be true. I just want to die right now.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Jules Catlyn said:
Oh lord, is this thread still going!?
Siri, show me an example of a rhetorical question.
Sorry. Could resist.
-
2
-
-
48 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:
I invite you to read about "first sale doctrine," a concept weakly understood on the forums in particular let alone inworld.
The idea that say, Olivia the creator is good and you can give them money because they are good because they are skilled, and you can't give money to Jane Q Avatar because she is unskilled at anything except selling others' works, and therefore she is dirty and not virtuous, belongs to the Middle Ages, and frankly, they didn't have it then, either as the Medicis funded art works, they got sold to individuals who then re-sold then happily.
Thanks to Jane, Olivia's works get visibility and others go to her store. Jane is not just an economic actor, she's free advertising. And her work and skill in selling Olivia's gatchas gives her cash so she can buy more of Olivia's works.
The inability to see this chain in the round, free of oppressive ideological blinders, is why this discussion goes in circles.
Your belief that you are virtuous if you buy "directly from the gatcha creator" but not from the re-seller sure doesn't apply in RL, where you buy milk not from farmers but from Gristedes. I think this notion of virtue is misplaced.
Interesting reply, but you're the one bringing morality into it. It was nowhere in my mind when I wrote my post.
Yes, I would rather support creators than resellers (and I say this as somebody who buys a lot of things second hand, in RL, and who loves thrift stores and fleamarkets). Virtue? Pffffft. It actually makes economic sense. Nobody will want to create anything to offer for sale if they don't sell anything, surely? And if the primary market dwindles, so does the secondary market. The "work" involved in selling a gacha item is minimal, especially considering the work involved in creating the item in the first place. I mean, it's like comparing a grain of dust to the Great Pyramids of Giza. Skill? Don't make me laugh. Most of the resellers on the marketplace don't even bother writing anything, they just upload a picture of the gacha sale poster, usually low res, so that you have to squint REALLY hard to see what item corespond to the gacha item number. That's if they add the number in the first place. Free advertising? Have you ever seen a gacha reseller giving the the slurl to the original store?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Yhishara Cerise said:
So what if a new event featured only full collections and nothing sold as individual items?[...]
The creators would have control over how many items they include in each pack as well: If they have a collection of 20 pieces they could break that down into smaller packs based on things like item type or colour or they could just set up the whole set as one purchase. The only stipulation for the event to qualify is that nothing can be sold as a single colour or item.
Presumably, some people would then buy the fatpack to break it into pieces for selling on the marketplace individually. As somebody said somewhere in earlier in this thread, I'd rather give that money to the creator. So, if a creator would like that money...we're back to selling things the time honoured way...
Actually, for every item in a store, I think it would be great to have two options to buy an item: one that is copy/no transfer, and one that is no copy/ transfer (I think I have seen some stores that do that).
-
12 hours ago, MoiraKathleen said:
Which is why I still think that the best thing for creators to do is to display the set in their store, rezzed out, and let people buy which ever of the pieces that they want to buy - in which case I could just buy the couch intially, and not have to worry about having to buy other parts of the set when I'm only interested in one of the items.
If they make a nice display showing off the pieces and how well they go together, it is likely that a number of customers would buy a majority, or perhaps even all, of the items.
Yep - selling the "regular" way. Quite a few stores do that... I agree, it's so much nicer for the consumer....
-
2
-
-
Stupid question, probably, but if fishing is OK, because you're buying a known item (a token? bait? I don't fish, but I'm somewhat hazy on the details), and what you get via the token? Bait? is no transfer… why can't the game formerly known as gachas (let's call it "gotcha!") use the same structure? You buy a token, and feed it in the gotcha! machine and get a (no transfer) random thing. Wouldn't that be OK? Never mind that the token in itself is absolutely worthless: you can't wear it, or use it as décor, or do anything with it… You know what you're getting and anything after doesn't matter, apparently. Seems strange to me that that's OK.
(To be clear, I've only played gachas a few times, when I was quite happy to get whatever from what's on offer, and I'm certainly glad if the way forward is to know what I'm getting, so I'm not trying to save gachas or anything…. as far as I'm concerned, good riddance to gachas.) Also I've only the faintest idea of what's involved in fishing (maybe that's obvious?).
But I'm just puzzled - what would stop sellers of gachas doing that, sell tokens to be used in gacha machines (and make the random items no transfer)?
Am I missing something? I HAVE tried reading the whole tread…but I wouldn't want to be quizzed on it…
-
9 hours ago, Garnet Psaltery said:
It might lead to a case of Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.
Something I can say for sure I'll never suffer from.
Hey, why is everybody running away?
-
4
-
-
On 1/27/2021 at 4:22 AM, Mollymews said:
i like it when the tippee doesn't make me guess what they would like
i like it when there is the edit box default and and only 1 fixed amount button indicating the upper range. And not 4 fixed amount buttons with a wide range.
so if the default edit is 50L and the fixed button is 100L then tippee is saying 50-100 is good. Any more or less (by editing) is up to the tipper
what confuses me about expectations is when the range is like [50]. 10 20 100 200. It kinda suggests that 200L is good but will take 10L. My confusion is, is the person undervaluing themselves at 10L or are they overvaluing themselves at 200L. I much prefer when I get shown a much narrower range. [10] 50, [20] 100, [50] 200, [100] 400, [200] 500, [500]1000, etc With the lower amount being editable/changeable
The more classes I go to, the more I agree with that....
Also, I definitely found that some of the classes are quite... forceful at fishing for tips. Which I can understand, but as somebody who's not from North America, I do find that slightly offputting.
Also, what's with not offering class notes? It can take me about an hour to edit a chat log, and every minute that I do it I feel really pissed off that I have to do it. So I'm "paying" with my time, and on top of that I have to tip you? Nope. Is it just me who feels that way?
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Olympics
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Surely we can choose to expand the "men" category, if we judge it would best achieve fairness to female athletes.