Merchant Archive
Thread: Some reasons why vendors should stay after you drop Merchant.
"Unfortunately for your point, the devs didn't say 'We agree in principle, but' "
Here you are implying that my point is off because there is no *BUT* in the devs statement.... which of course there is, as anyone who understands what the phrase means and how it is used knows that there are *BUTS* implied in ALL agreements of principle... otherwise they wouldnt be an agreement of principle, they would be a flat out agreements.
You follow this up by saying exactly that!!!!!
"An agreement in principle, defines an agreement to the core principles of an issue with certain points of issue that need to be clarified."
You disagreed with me, then say exactly what I said. How utterly interesting.
We agree *BUT* there are certain points of issue. You are saying the exact same thing I was saying.... and the hilarity of it all is that you dont know it.
This is getting too easy. Soon you'll be debating my point for me... I can just sit back and watch you argue with yourself.
Attikus wrote:
you just repeated what i said
In all ways that were not.
Attikus wrote:
From your post....
"Unfortunately for your point, the devs didn't say 'We agree in principle, but' "
Here you are implying that my point is off because there is no *BUT* in the devs statement.... which of course there is, as anyone who understands what the phrase means and how it is used knows that there are *BUTS* implied in ALL agreements of principle... otherwise they wouldnt be an agreement of principle, they would be a flat out agreements.
There is a huge difference between someone saying 'I agree in principle' and 'I agree in principle, but at this time that's not an option'. For you to use the second phrase to try to explain the definition of the first is ludicrous.
An agreement in principle does not implicitly imply a 'but it can't be done', an agreement in principle is simply that: An agreement on the core principles of an issue. That's it. It's not a statement of action, but it is not a statement of inaction either.
You follow this up by saying exactly that!!!!!
I followed it up by summarizing a point that I took two pages to make in my original post that got eaten by the forums having a hiccup. You got lucky in the sense that I didn't feel like retyping all of that and had things to do so I summarized. This gave you wiggle room to nit-pick and again attempt to obfuscate the main issue.
"An agreement in principle, defines an agreement to the core principles of an issue with certain points of issue that need to be clarified."
You disagreed with me, then say exactly what I said. How utterly interesting.
Except I didn't REMOTELY say 'exactly' what you said. Your 'explanation' of the devs statement, was an implication that 'agreement in principle' meant that while someone agreed, nothing could be done. My point was, and remains, that this is not true. No matter how you attempt to tap dance now (by not quoting yourself and relying on the fact that people won't go up-thread to recheck your post), you cannot say that your 'explanation' of an agreement in principle was that it means that the devs agree with us on this issue.
We agree *BUT* there are certain points of issue. You are saying the exact same thing I was saying.... and the hilarity of it all is that you dont know it.
I will say again, I am .not. saying exactly the same thing. No matter how much you attempt to say that, a consistent reader of the thread can see how you keep abandoning positions and attempting to say that you've held some other position all along.
Again, and for the last time:
Your 'explanation' of an agreement in principle was that it means someone agrees to something, but that they can't do anything about it. An agreement in principle really is just an agreement on the core issues or beliefs of a subject. There is no implicit 'but' no matter how much you try to imply there is. It is generally a stepping stone to a final solution.
So, to get back to the point that you so desperately try to tap dance to avoid and make us forget about:
In this case the devs agree that people who drop merchant skills should lose the benefits of those skills. They've asked people for suggestions as to how that might work, and be fairly applied to those that drop the skill.
Your point to Yopner, was that his quoting the devs their statement didn't mean anything like what he said it did. So... since Yopner's point has been that the Devs agree that dropping skills should mean losing vendors, please explain how the devs statement can be read as NOT agreeing.
This is getting too easy. Soon you'll be debating my point for me... I can just sit back and watch you argue with yourself.
Since your pattern to date has been to abandon arguments that are shown to be fallacies and to assume a contradictory position to your previous view and not in fact to debate at all, I'd be unsurprised to find myself the only one of us making any form of actual argument.
They agreed in principle - that does not mean they flat out agree with it. If they did flat out agree with it.... they would have said so. But no, they specifically used the term 'agree in principle'
Again with you and the reading comprehension - what gives with that?
Heck I agree in principle with that statment too.
I mean, I guess if you dont understand the difference, it will be kind of hard to continue to argue about it.
"Interesting analogies ... allow me to cut and paste one of my own from a different thread:
2.The skills of 'hiring and placing' are not at ALL like crafting a suit of armor. As an armorsmith, your goal is to craft armor ... you do so and you have a tangible reward: the armor itself. The skills and skill mods you get along the way are all designed to make it easier for you to get that reward. Now you are right ... once you drop that skill, you get to still keep your reward ... that would only be fair. However, you are prevented from getting that reward in the same way again. Sure, you can get it by buying it, just not by crafting
Now let's look at it from the merchant point of view. The goal of the class is to SELL STUFF. The skills and skill mods along the way are all designed to facilitate that ... placing vendors, advertising, etc. The REWARD is the credits you get at the end of a sale. Now, if i give up merchant, do i have to return the credits? Certainly not ... that would be as silly as an armorsmith finding his armor had disappeared after giving up that class. However, i should be barred from making credits in the same way, just as an armorsmith who gives up the skill cant craft armor anymore. Sure, i could still sell stuff and make credits ... i just shouldnt be allowed to do it using skills that i had surrendered. It wouldnt be fair to have a former armorsmith be able to craft armor after giving up the skill, right?"
Perfectly said.
Attikus wrote:
"since Yopner's (sic) point has been that the Devs agree that dropping skills should mean losing vendors, please explain how the devs statement can be read as NOT agreeing."
They agreed in principle - that does not mean they flat out agree with it. If they did flat out agree with it.... they would have said so. But no, they specifically used the term 'agree in principle'
Again with you and the reading comprehension - what gives with that?
Heck I agree in principle with that statment too.
I mean, I guess if you dont understand the difference, it will be kind of hard to continue to argue about it.
Unfortunately this message failed to pass the topic content filter as Attikus has again reverted to tap-dancing away from arguments and mindlessly flaming those who disagree with him. Since this marks the 'third strike' the chances of this thread have any useful value has pretty much fallen to 0.
Jarloo,
Although I see your point, it doesn't much appeal to me as a profession though. I don't do design and decorating. I sell things. The merchant class as designed is supposed to sell things. The proposals to create rentable vendors all have the same flaw they have me selling my ability to sell things and giving up a transactional charge on each item in the process. Making me make less money and empowering others to become the real merchants in the game. Plus.. it totally blows apart the 6 vendor limit per merchant in the process. There is a reaons for that limit. It has to do with how many vendors the game system can support. You can't double or triple it without consequence. (I think you are seeing some of that consequence now because there are just too many vendors and too many items for sale in them and that is what is causing a change to the item limits on them)
If you fear your merchant will leave the game then don't enter into consignment sales with him. Make him pay up front and sell the items for a profit. If he leaves you aren't out anything except the time to find another merchant. The reason there aren't more merchants around is simple..they can't easily attact business. If there were incentives for people to sell to them there would be more of them.
Now. That being said what I would like to see is the ability for me as a merchant to put down a vendor in your shop (or 3) and allow you to easily put merchandise on it..and have me (even remotely) do my peice to put the items up for sale and everything get paid out in the end automatically. It would be much like outsourcing. I still am involved in the sale..(the vendors work for me) and I work for you.
That maintians the merchant as the profession with skills in selling things and makes it easier for you to do business with them.
Korrack wrote:
geez, this thread is still alive?
We ran out of silver bullets.