Streamer priority confirmed. PoE is free to play, so play it for free, but Boycott GGG.
|
His basic assumption is false. It is not even an analogy. It can be called a saying, proverb, maxim, aphorism, axiom, adage, motto, precept, dictum, pearl of wisdom, or an expression. Those things are all different from an analogy.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
|
|
" Thanks. Axes don't cut trees a lumberjack does. To the lumberjack the more tree he fell the better. It isn't that he forget, he have never believe cutting trees to be evil, or would even consider it to be good. You can't forget something that never even crossed your mind. The Connotation that an idea or feeling is positive rather than negative. To the lumberjack it help everyone, he have no idea what harm you are talking about. |
|
|
Thank you so much for the alternative point of view, these kind of things make it worth every second of my time thinking of how to compose a post.
The gratifying concept of a sayings is that it can be used in a variety of situations to mean different things to different people. I have a few more, not as interesting, but certainly thought provoking when used in an eloquent way. The ultimate question is, does the end justify the means? " very similar to "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" - Dennis A. Henigan Axes absolutely don't cut trees on their own, someone is always responsible for wielding the tool. However without the axe, the lumberjack can cut down no trees. " (so my on topic bit as a analogy) At the time while our lumberjack is doing his thing, he may not see the harm, but once the deed is done and there is no more forest to cut down, as all the trees are gone and he is left with only an empty lot where once trees used to flourish, he may be indifferent and may immediately move onto the path of forest 2, but maybe he could realize that his need to make more money is ultimately what destroyed the original forest in the first place and find that the whole world is a little poorer because of it. " "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - unknown (adapted from the original in Sirach 21:10) |
|
" Now I don't know if that source or phrasing is correct - got that from a youtube comment section - but there it is for consideration all the same. It's also not meant to be an analogy. This situation isn't just a misunderstanding of differing points of view anyway. It has already been pointed out that things like a backdoor priority queue don't just exist - they require premeditation, planning, and testing. This whole scenario had to go past multiple people's desks and get approval over a long period of time at which point anyone could have pumped the brakes and said 'whoa hey wait a minute - this isn't 'us''. If you can wedge that into an non-analogy analogy about lumberjacks, a tip of the cap to you. |
|
|
Well, we use chainsaws nowadays, felling a tree at his end of life is part of an harvest, we fell the tree to create place for the seedling. Wood is a resource that gets collected every 80 years. The co2 cycle of burning the wood begins with the sappling binding the carbon.
A argument can be made that forests grow where lumberjacks are present, as birds and squirrels are pretty lazy treeplanters. File your complaints to the department that intends to harvest the same tree every year. Analogys aside, as the time passes on and GGGs tools improve, patchday problems will always be patchday problems. The technology to regulate the inflow may improve but always be capped by additional requests/customers who use the bandwith. Lets say they let 200 people of 160k skip the queue, how many seconds does that delay the login of one of the 160ktes ? 10seconds ??? Not every racingcar can start on the pole position, motorsport isn´t fair lets burn the tracks. I´m more shocked that they can´t regulate discussion about countries over there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcKqhDFhNHI
| |
" Sort of true -- there are elements of an analogy's intent to sayings such as this one, but when we're talking about axes I try not to split hairs...;) But eh, I'm not really surprised that Exiles would take the spirit of a saying and then dissect the shit out of it until it's been wrung of all meaning. Sort of reminds me of when Terry Pratchett took on the Sphinx's Riddle in Pyramids: " (bold mine) There's a reason most proverbs, axiomata, Wise Old Sayings, and Shit Confucius Probably Didn't Say keep it very simple: simple things are harder to break down. They cut, all puns intended, to the heart of the matter. The problem with the Sphinx's Riddle is, as Teppic shows above, it leaves far too much room for scrutiny. Even when it was conceived. But it still serves as a useful tool for considering, approximately, the various stages of a Man's life in terms of ease of ambulation. Sure, we might not use axes anymore, and you can wax on and wax off about the agency of the axe versus the intent of the axe-wielder, the lumberjack, but that's just deliberately missing the point of the saying in the first place. Which Teppic did because, well, if he didn't, the Sphinx would have eaten him. And we can't have that. Deliberately missing the point of the African proverb, however, only serves to unnecessarily weaken the message at hand. A curious intellectual diversion of almost no value. Not entirely unlike playing PoE itself, I suppose. Nit-picking is funnier (and, I think, more profound) when it's in the context of a wily hero saving his own skin Odysseus-style in a Discworld novel and not a discussion about...well, you know what it's about. You're here, after all. So let's bury this hatchet and move on: Sayings must, as noted above, be pithy and concise. Terse, even. So -- "The axe forgets what the tree remembers." 'Axe' is a form of metonymy here: when we speak of the axe's 'memory', we're speaking of the memory of the lumberjack, since axes obviously have no memory (unless certain African tribes had some wicked fucking tech going on). The axe serves as the tool of the lumberjack's intent, which is to cut down the tree. Equally, trees cannot remember being cut down, because they don't have memories either and even if they did, they'd be too busy wondering what happened to their leaves and why people are using them for tables and chairs, and that's assuming a tree knows what a table or a chair is, or a human for that matter. Who can say what a tree knows, thinks, or remembers? Oh no, this doesn't make sense at all. Unless, wait. Waitwaitwaitwait. I think...I think it's a...OH. We're the tree? Okay, really, the saying should be something like, 'the lumberjack doesn't remember what they've done to the tree because what they've done to the tree is nothing more than what lumberjacks do but the tree which is probably a *metaphor* for actual people will remember because being hurt (assuming trees can feel pain, which is a big assumption based on current science) leaves stronger memories (again, assuming trees have memories) than hurting others UNLESS hurting others also hurts yourself but even then you can't really empathise because we all experience pain differently hang on what happened to the axe?' '...Look, forget explaining the meaning okay? Let's just boil it down to a few words of wisdom and let people figure out the actual meaning for themselves. People are smart, right? They'll get it. Well, most of them. Probably a few out there might quibble the details...well, not so many that it won't catch on. And that's what matters, really.' ___ Oh, and by the way: Boycott GGG. https://linktr.ee/wjameschan -- everything I've ever done worth talking about, and even that is debatable. Last edited by Foreverhappychan on May 3, 2021, 10:21:08 PM
|
|
" Notice when being concise and subjecting it to higher degree of scrutiny, the entire meaning changes? I could say the words of wisdom is a form of fallacy. This fallacy occurs when you assume that the conclusion must be true. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim. " What will the lumberjacks do without their livelihood? What will the carpenter do without their wood? What will the people do without wood for their furniture and houses? The atrocity! Guess we have to continue cutting trees. It is great we are bunch of sane evil people. Last edited by awesome999 on May 4, 2021, 6:04:43 AM
|
|
" I've been wanting that for years, on a number of levels. At some point GGG transitioned from a company that operated quite well without strict, concrete rules to one that absolutely should have them, but never took the time to sit down and hash those rules out. Obviously I'm speaking about my own field here -- forum behaviour/transgressions/punishment -- but I think it reflects an overall approach of 'deal with it when the time comes'. That works when you're a smaller company and can tackle things personally. When there isn't some gaping chasm between you and your customers. But now, it's basically the case that we have 'guidelines' and you'll only ever know if you've stepped over those lines when you do. As for what happens next -- the same. There is a curious enlightenment to going from one side of that blurry territory to the other. Now that's speaking in terms of customer service, which is a decent starting point because in both your case and mine, 'not creating rules no one cares about' is the key. You're speaking about the company's own behaviour, 'self-imposed'. A mission statement, perhaps. But I think they're just too plain smart to do that now. Why set regulations for yourself that the majority of people don't care about when there's every chance you'd have to breach those regulations somewhere down the track? And by 'have to' I really mean 'really want to because there's a lot of money to be made in it'. Because: " These are all mostly implicit, even now. That Chris explicitly apologised for breaching one of them is both extraordinary (never apologise seems a very common MO in customer service these days) and kind of toothless ('we're sorry we did this unfair, unethical thing to our customers, but we were worried about losing a lot of money so we did it anyway' doesn't exactly ring with sincerity). And it's smart to leave these implicit because Exiles can, for the sake of their addiction, be surprisingly realistic about the situation. Life's not fair, no one's truly equal, streamers get priority because they make GGG money, and so on. For whatever reason, this notion of fairness for all, a foundation upon which GGG built this entire endeavour, falters the moment it becomes a hassle to maintain. It's like Exiles approve of the ideal represented by GGG but are perfectly fine with GGG repeatedly failing to live up to it. I don't believe GGG would ever commit to any of what you've said though. The vagary of 'fairness' suffices. The intent suffices. Should they fall short, well, at least they tried, right? More than we can say for most others. Better to try and fail than not try at all and all that. Except they didn't really fail; since this idea of 'fairness' is mostly implicit (league launch aside -- I don't think we will see streamer priority there again in a hurry, hahaha), all they did was choose a different sort of win. An arguably better one, business-wise. And GGG, oh, so very business wise. " This is problematic because, again going with the implicit, once that money's changed hands, it's no longer anyone's but GGG's (and Tencent's, eventually). A supporter is trusting them to 'allocate their resources responsibly' and absolutely should not get to dictate it beyond that (supporter design notwithstanding -- that was and remains an outlier as regards whose 'money' it is, given the promise of 'working with' GGG). If a supporter isn't happy with what GGG do with 'their' money, the only sound response is stop giving them money. And unfortunately, handing a huge influencer (and here I must qualify: that influencer is a genuinely top-tier gamer, objectively, and not just a talking head) a 'pile of cash' to play your game for two hours is advertising. It isn't at all unethical in and of itself, any more than any sort of celebrity endorsement might be. The unethical part of all this starts and ends with giving streamers, paid or otherwise, priority access to otherwise gridlocked servers. That is the only thing GGG did that explicitly breached their ethics. But it wasn't so shocking as it would have been a few years ago, which tells me that while this was a relatively isolated incident, it was not unforeseeable. Somehow, it fell within the realm of, 'yeah, we can see GGG doing that'. That's the part that I'll probably never reconcile. Because if something that far against their ethics is acceptable 'for a big pile of money'...what else might be? I'm not talking slippery slopes here, just reasonable doubt that there won't be a next time a big pile of money is on the line. https://linktr.ee/wjameschan -- everything I've ever done worth talking about, and even that is debatable.
|
|
|
I honestly think, at this point, it doesn't really matter how shocking GGG's behavior is.
Short of them stopping releasing leagues, I belive they can get away with pretty much anything. Not even sure that competiton (leagues behind in development), could sway people away. And that is mostly because the players, the junkies that we are, will remain firmly attached to the game's tits for as long as the hook is provided and choose to justify, minimize, relativize their misconducts. What better to exemplify this than the reddit memes: "I'm done with this game. See you on friday!" (Ultimatum league launch). Yeah, we're kinda trapped. | |
" ...and maybe also because their behaviour is some of the least shocking, least immoral behaviour of any game dev team, or even just general business of their revenue size you could probably point to off the cuff. the fact that this entire thing is an absurd over exaggeration beyond all reason and sense, that ggg are not actually bad people, theyre not a bad company and they havent actually done anything really terrible/unforgiveable does go some way to explaining why most people are just gonna carry on as if ggg are good people working for a good comapny that hasnt done anything terrible or unforgivable. because, you know, thats actually the reality of the people and the company despite what demented, delusional bullshit has been brewed up in this thread to feed peoples degenerate addiction to outrage. |
|
