Where does out latest proposal mention, tax, having to pay gralats, or allude to anything as such. Please provide arguments for this claim or quotes from out LATEST argument that suggest that.
Irrelevant to the case
“The idea I had in mind as well. The current effectiveness of gang rewards (gang hats skins etc,) needs to be questioned, in its ability in encouraging the growth of diverse (new) gangs (i.e. why a monopolistic basing system exists). I believe there needs to be an additional different set of rewards (or incentive, bonus, whatever) which is more pragmatic for non-veteran gangs and takes more friendly approach to noobs.”
As you state, rewards is merely an encouragement. A means to kickstart a competitive basing scene with the end goal of making it more fun. Rewards, I have in mind, that differ from the 2k+ basing hours.
What’s incomplete is this odd paranoia with a notion of tax, even though NO OINE is pushing this narrative or suggesting so, in the presented argument.
Where does he explicitly say that?
Red herring; content in someone’s signature has no relevance to their presented argument
The proposed solutions isn’t arguing for a presence of a reward but rather a system that give smaller gangs an extra (not gralats already disowned that idea) incentive/bonus/ whatever
- - - Updated - - -
Would be more satisfying if you would criticise the proposed idea rather than a trivial signature or a scarecrow. (And for you to rant and roast, you mentioned previously)
- - - Updated - - -
JD M, please explain
1) How the proposed solution is involved with taxing (with quotes or arguments)
2) Why rewards doesn't lead to encouragement of participation of smaller gangs -> diversity of basing scene -> increased competitiveness -> more fun with basing (without reference to veteran gangs or already existing rewards which isn't the proposed solution's intended audience nor have anything to do about)
- - - Updated - - -
This may be an unpopular opinion but the excuse of simply not being bothered reading the opponent's argument to the extent of make blatantly false or exaggerated interpretations, shouldn't be acceptable in an intended fruitful discourse. If you're "bored" then why make commentary on the opposition argument without full/ complete comprehension and understanding.
It's rather sad that people already have a bias/ incline against LYK which hinders reasoning and prevents them from giving a proper chance for him to explain his changing and adapting ideas.
If you are wondering why people keep thinking about the false idea of tax, then you would only need a look in the mirror to find a perpetrator of this movement.