Just Chatting - Take 3
Social forum
Posted on April 24, 2015, 4:02 p.m. by Didgeridooda
Third time's a charm.
Remember to please post Magic-related discussions in separate threads as appropriate. This thread is for non-MTG or very casual discussions; we want to foster new and continual game discussion across the rest of the site as well.
Admin Note:
Attention Modern players! There's a new Modern Chat. Please use that thread to discuss Modern-related things.
Attention Standard players! There's a new Standard Chat. Please use that thread to discuss Standard-related things.
Epochalyptik says... #2
I don't like that idea.
Token sales do account for a portion of the site's revenue, and it doesn't really benefit us to hand them out so regularly. I think one per year for either actual birthday or account birthday is a compromise.
May 4, 2015 10:50 a.m.
I feel like that's really underwhelming. Because an extra deck cycle means one extra everyday. That seems better than just one token
May 4, 2015 10:50 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
We might also limit it further and require that your account has been active in the past month in order to claim the bonus.
May 4, 2015 10:51 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
Extra deckcycle means one bonus deckcycle, period. Not recurring.
May 4, 2015 10:52 a.m.
I just thought it would be nice to just get a little gift once a week. Maybe because tokens can be sent to other accounts it shouldn't be those because people could make lots of accounts to accrue tokens. You can get around this by giving either dekcycles (can't deckcycle another persons deck right?) or make it so it only kicks in after your account has been active for a minimum of 6 months. No one is going to wait half a year for a feature token haha.
May 4, 2015 10:55 a.m.
I agree with ChiefBell. I say no to tokens. Maybe an extra deckcycle once per week? After the account has been active for a year?
May 4, 2015 10:57 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
Deckcycles apply only to your own decks, I believe, so they're safe. They're not very abusable.
Maybe require that bonus tokens can only be spent on your own decks?
May 4, 2015 10:58 a.m.
Would that be hard epoch? Requiring bonus tokens to be used only on someone's own deck?
May 4, 2015 10:59 a.m.
A bonus token that you get on your birthday once a year that you may only spend on your own deck is reasonable. Account must have been active within last 4 weeks and account must have existed for more than 6 months?
May 4, 2015 10:59 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
Keep in mind that one of the incentives for upgrading is the three cycles per day. The rewards should be a nice bonus, not a persistent thing.
May 4, 2015 10:59 a.m.
VampireArmy says... #16
One token is enough if you think about it. Hell it might even help sales. Maybe someone never considered using tokens then they get a little notification saying happy birthday you get a token to feature your deck. They get a bunch of hits and crave to do it again? Sure this isn't bound to be the case every time but I'd bet it happens a lot. Perhaps make it that your account must be active in the last 3 months and has to be a year old. It probably makes more sense to just go by account age honestly
May 4, 2015 11 a.m.
Yeh. Often a demonstration of what a product can do for you is the best way to sell it.
May 4, 2015 11:03 a.m.
It's a method a lot of drug salesmen do. It seems to work pretty well from my discoveries through reading.
May 4, 2015 11:04 a.m.
VampireArmy says... #20
It's more of what any loyalty based companies do.
Think about rewards cards and how pretty much everywhere has one.
May 4, 2015 11:06 a.m.
Maybe that one person doesn't do it. Maybe the facts I've read are wrong then. Or maybe it isn't all drugs.
May 4, 2015 11:07 a.m.
I work in rehab haha. It's not true. They don't need to. They tend to work very quietly and keep themselves to themselves for the most part. No free samples, no bullshit. Your average cocaine addict will be spending about upwards of $1000 a week anyway. They don't need to give free samples. Plus most people try drugs and never get addicted. Therefore its both unnecessary and would be ineffective.
May 4, 2015 11:09 a.m.
Huh my bad then. I guess I shouldn't always believe what I read.
May 4, 2015 11:11 a.m.
It's one of that arguments that anti legalisation fighters put forward to try to demonstrate how addictive and awful drugs are. It's a common myth, don't worry. However there is plenty of research to suggest that the vast majority of people do not get addicted to drugs in a catastrophic way. Most casual use stays at casual use.
May 4, 2015 11:13 a.m.
Makes sense to me. I'm pretty uneducated when it comes to drugs.
May 4, 2015 11:16 a.m.
So I'm kind of annoyed right now. Ran into someone who accused me of netdecking, harassed me, and made a fake account to continue doing so. And he makes it out like yeago agrees with him or something after I displayed my annoyance with him.
May 4, 2015 11:23 a.m.
It just irks the ever loving crap out of me that he of all people is trying to take the moral high ground.
May 4, 2015 11:26 a.m.
I think most people are. There's a lot of governmental spin, controversy and, frankly, propaganda. Which is pretty obvious when you consider the vast sums of money spent every year with the war on drugs, and the fact that various public services (such as the police) rely on budget money granted to them to fight drugs. This breeds an environment where misinformation is beneficial to a lot of very rich, and very important people. You can guess what happens next.
I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist or anything; I just recognise both sides of the argument, and I've spent a fair amount of time working the field and reading studies about addiction. I therefore have the privilege of being intimately involved in both sides. On the one hand I work for a company that profits from prohibition of drugs (the hospital I work for receives referrals often from the police or courts). I also see the awful effects that drugs can have on some people. On the other hand I've read the research and met many other individuals that only use recreationally, say.... once a week or once a month. I also understand that many of the consequences of addiction are caused by prohibition (example: keeping drugs criminalised puts the power in the hands of criminals who end up making far too much money - this leads to violent crime, and it also leads to drugs being produced with questionable purity levels).
I think drug education needs to be more balanced and honest because the reality of the situation is very different to what most official agencies would have you belief. California for example has not gone batshit insane since cannabis legalisation. Portugal has had complete decriminalisation of ALL drugs for many years and has one of the lowest addiction rates in the entire world. Holland has legal cannabis and also has low crime and addiction rates. The list goes on. Although I am wary with letting just anyone off the street smoke cannabis - it's very strongly linked to schizophrenia, which is awful and completely incurable.
xzzane - Just tell him that netdecking isn't even a bad thing anyway.
May 4, 2015 11:30 a.m.
GoldGhost012 says... #31
Back in time for the MMA2 spoilers. Did I miss anything important?
May 4, 2015 11:34 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #32
If you're having issues with a user, you should probably report that to me.
May 4, 2015 11:34 a.m.
It's not the net decking bit that irks me, it's the fact that he made a fake account to continue harassing me after I blocked him. And yet he's taking the moral high ground.
May 4, 2015 11:34 a.m.
The incident in question happened a long time ago. I just happened to run into him on another person's page.
May 4, 2015 11:36 a.m.
Thanks for the info chief and I agree that our government hides a lot of the truths
May 4, 2015 11:44 a.m.
VampireArmy says... #36
Netdecking pleb. Taking a known archetype and personalizing it like you own it. You sicken me
May 4, 2015 11:47 a.m.
VampireArmy says... #38
Naw serooosleh don't sell space in your head to people:0
May 4, 2015 11:50 a.m.
elpokitolama says... #41
ChiefBell c'mon man, the fight against drugs make governments lose money. Nobody is winner in this affair (except the cartels, of course). The only thing that bothers me is that there are legal drugs. Tobacco is one, and it looks like that it is (in France) the favorite way of dying faster than with the natural way people found. Basically, each time you're breathing something that's burning imperfectly (which means usually at a temperature below 1000 C), you're going to put a lot of stuff you don't want to have in your body. And it might also be the case for e-cigarettes, we just haven't got the time to see its major drawbacks yet (if there is any).
Prevention stays the best way to act against that kind of stupid and slow suicide. ~~(>.>)
May 4, 2015 11:52 a.m.
elpokitolama says... #42
"The government is hiding us a lot of things..." sure, it's true, but the hidden things aren't at a level this low. It's more on an spying point of view. Or foreign policy.
May 4, 2015 11:55 a.m.
I know I said they lose loads of money -> So they like to justify WHY they're spending all that money -> So they have to come up with a good reason. So they lie about drugs.
They have to justify it because YOU! (the taxpayer) are funding their war on drugs.
May 4, 2015 11:55 a.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #44
Sparda1127 I can't be held responsible for your actions. I can only offer you this picture of an Oreo.
Though why you decided to look at my profile I will never understand.
May 4, 2015 11:56 a.m.
elpokitolama says... #45
In this world, money prevails. If drugs weren't a major public health issue, it would have been a long time since you would be able to consume cocaine freely in the USA.
May 4, 2015 11:58 a.m.
I can assure you that cocaine is not a major public health issue. There is very little research suggesting that cocaine is a major public health issue. As it stands right now, it is not a public health issue. There is no evidence even that legalising leads to increased usage of drugs. There is literally no evidence for anything you are trying to assert.
You assume that legalisation results in greater usage of drugs - not true.
You assume that greater usage results in larger health issues - somewhat true (but not necessarily a problem - more on that later).
You assume that it IS a major public health problem in the first place - not true.
You are right in saying money prevails but what happens is that after a government has spent money they have to justify it. Backtracking is the last thing you can do. Therefore you cannot just change your mind on over 50 years of spending and admit you were wrong. Money does prevail but not in the way you think it does. You are over-simplifying.
To come back to the second assumption - that greater use leads to more public health problems. Did you know that smokers make money for your country? They are net producers, not net consumers. This is because the total amount of money your government (I think you are French?) makes from taxing smokers (when you buy ciagrettes you pay goods tax) is less than the money they spend treating health problems related to smoking. Drugs MAKE MONEY.
Literally the only reason governments cant legalise is to save face - save embarrassment.
The best thing a government can do is legalise every substance to ensure the purity is high. Tax the shit out of anything that causes severe health problems to guarantee they make more money than they spend on healthcare (NOTE: this is not a problem in the US where healthcare isn't even free), and pour money out of prisons (which do not work) and into clinical rehabilitation facitilies (which do work).
May 4, 2015 12:11 p.m.
elpokitolama says... #47
Cocaine KILLS. Smoking KILLS. Drug usage, especially at a young age, might lower heavily your mental capabilities. I don't give a single damn if there is according to you no evidences that legalizing drugs will not increase drug usage -which is something we can debate on, but since weed was legalized in Netherland, a lot of people from other land are coming there just to try i out, or make provisions of it, and no matter what you can think about it, more people trying means more people being addicted to it-, but there are many evidences that drugs penalization save lives. And I believe this and this only should stay the main priority.
Also, saying that clinical rehabilitation facilities and taxes are the reason why "Big Governement" is hiding us the "awful truth" to "save face" about the drugs controversy is exactly the same argumentation anti-vaxxers are using everyday: "Big Pharma" is hiding us the "awful truth" to "save face" about vaccines while making a lot of money from it, which is complete bullshit.
By the way, I forgot to respond to your last message on our precedent conversation: yup', Mein Kampf was written some times after the creation of the Nazi party. But go ahead and do some researchs about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This one was the one that led to the creation of nazism itself.
May 4, 2015 12:38 p.m.
elpokitolama - Firstly - death doesn't cost the state significant amounts of money. So I don't care. Secondly your argument is fatally flawed because you just insinuated we should criminalise activities that result in death. Should suicide be illegal? Should alcohol be illegal? Should nuts be illegal (allergies)? Should dangerous sports be illegal? People do things all the time that result in their own personal death. Who cares if they enter into it knowingly? You are basically trying to treat adults like babies, which is pathetic. What you essentially just argued is that should criminalise actions that lead to death. So what's your stance on suicide then? Or did you not think that far forward? It's sad when people die, but you can't protect peopel from the world. And my point is that evidence suggests this babying attitude does more harm than good.
And no, it's not the same as big pharma. We have evidence that prohibition of drugs DOES NOT WORK. We have evidence that legalisation DOES WORK. When it comes to big pharma we have almost no evidence. I am making a claim with research to prove it. It is not crazy or uninformed.
Why are you arguing with me when you have no experience, and have not bothered to read the studies? You are just making vague, ill-thought out points with no conclusive backing. I have conclusive backing.
You also can't be addicted to cannabis. You also have not addressed the point that drug use could potentially make the state a lot of money - and already does from smoking and alcohol.
Your point about the Nazi party is completely irrelevant as I keep saying over and over again and you keep ignoring. There were facets to the party that did not include anti semitism, and acting as if they did not exist is naive and ill informed. The Germans did not vote the Nazi party into power because they were all anti semitic, they did it for a variety of economic, and social reasons. Anti semitism was one of those reasons. The treaty of versailles was one of those reasons. Encroaching communism was another reason. Stronger worker rights was a fourth. Post war depression was a fifth. Your original comments highlighted just one or two of these and claimed absolute certainty. This is not true. In doing this you portray the german people as completely one dimensional when they were not. My point the entire time was that there are a variety of reasons that led to their power, but highlighting just one and saying 'oh this is it!' is really stupid. Again you claimed determinism that is not there.
May 4, 2015 1 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #49
"You also can't be addicted to cannabis" seems poorly worded.
May 4, 2015 1:19 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #50
You know how everyone says you are better off looking for an actual job than to go through prostitution in some way? There's is truth to that.
It is a hell a lot fucking easier to go out and get a regular job than it is to get into the sex business. I'm trying to start sex camming and I have NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK I'M DOING. You are literally tossed into the fire and forced to learn the hard way, through trial and error. Chaturbate seems to be the easiest, but it also looks like the payout is much lower, and I have no idea the frequency that private shows occur (where a girl makes her money) and the average amount of obscenities she has to perform on an hourly basis.
So totally unprepared ... I never knew there was such a hurdle to overcome for this x.x
xzzane says... #1
That would be a bit much. I think just once a year would be best.
May 4, 2015 10:49 a.m.