Second Accounts and Ethics

That makes sense. Reminds me of the time I ate the last piece of pecan pie instead of offering to share it with the (sleeping) missus.

"wtf? Why didn't you let me have some that last piece?"

"Well, that depends on your definition of did. You see, if we define 'did' as 'did not,' obviously I 'did' share the last piece with you."

"..."

"What?"

"That doesn't make any sense at all. I don't care how you define it, you should have shared!"

"But, honey. I 'did' share it. And by that, I mean I did not share it."

hehe.. nah.. It is still borked (for me at least). I actually found that thread and quote through a link on the thread that Leck posted a link to. I read really fast.

That means this is a really redundant recursive loop !! RRRR RRRR RRR

I'm not going to defuse the bomb any more than to explain how and why I said what I did when I did, Nolan.

It IS a perfect quote of mine to use to point out my inconsistancy. Fifty points to those who found it.

What I am doing is explaining where I was coming from at the time. Trying to buy First Land for Coco (finally), and not being able to. Then it turns out I discover there are people buying it all up to resell it later, and deleting those alts.

THAT is what I think was wrong, as it prevents new players - i.e., me at the time - from finding any First Land at all.

I'm telling you that I wasn't thinking of it in terms of people who have more than one true, actual account.

And I'm still not. My ideas of what I think of as right and not right hasn't changed. I KNEW it was wrong to make a lot of accounts for the purpose of reselling, then dumping those accounts, as presented by the first post in that thread.

Then it became clear that it was an exploit. I knew that was wrong, also.

In sum: It is wrong to prevent new players from getting their own First Land by buying up all the First Land under fake alts for your land business. (Though apparently not against the rules.)

It is not wrong for any new player - i.e., new, actual account - to get their 512 with it. And I never thought otherwise.

coco

That would depend on what your definition of "is" is.

You kept at least one new player from aquiring their rightful first land at $512. I love rationalizations. Did you know that a rationalization is better than sex?? No?? Try going one day without a rationalization. 50 points for the movie reference.

Well Enabran, the fact is, Chip summed up the whole matter perfectly well a few pages back.

I've explained my stance on it now, and what my stance on it was then. Having looked at the original thread, with all the police blotter abuse reports on it, I see why I made that post.

I still say there is nothing wrong with any new, REAL account buying First Land. If I had thought so, I sure wouldn't have posted the fact that I did.

We'll just have to wait and see what the Lindens say.

coco

No, I did not! There has been a plethora of First Land available ever since I made Strawbearry!

coco

Whatever. My forehead is bleeding.

No, the broad brush assumes that anyone who thinks to the contrary is "piling on", thereby acting as if you know what's going on in their heads, and implying that they are not acting out of principle, but rather only motivated by dislike. You do not even address the points made when you do this. You simply offhandedly dismiss.

You go out of your way to jump in and snark at people who aren't even responding to you. You've done it 3 times to me in this thread when I was replying to others, and you've done it to a whole bevy of others as well.

I am not going to debate this with you anymore. Have the last word. You always do anyway. Don't expect me to entertain your vapid imagination anymore.

Ah did not have sex with that woman.

That would depend on your definitions of the following words:

stance
abuse
real account
wrong


Now, since Cocoanut's current vogue is to supply her own definitions for otherwise objective concepts, I want to try this game too. I am going to redefine these words for my argument accordingly:

stance = rapidly changing sea of quicksand
abuse = hug
real account = slice of pie
wrong = awesome

And... begin:

I think it is wrong to abuse your grandmother and then throw her into a stance. She'd be all surprised and have a heart attack and then who would give you a real account?


The moral of this story: Redefining things for your own convenience is laughable.

But what about the new people who want specific land? Like you. I mean like Cocoanut. when you, err Cocoanut was complaining there was not enough first land available. I pointed out that there was plenty of PG land available and that in fact my land for the landless land PG and I was pleased as punch to get it at the time because land was so scarce and costly. You stated you only wanted MATURE land. When Enabran commented about you wanting mature land for the resale value, you stated that was not the case.


Now we fast forward, and here you are, or your drone is or however you compartmentalize yourself to justify your actions, and you are taking land from real potential newbies. It doesn't matter if there are 10,000 plots available, you had a plot for yourself and you decided to get another at a discount. If you wanted more land you could have bought it at market value but you decided to buy it at a discount with an alt to only benefit yourself.

I would like to thank you for creating this thread so we can have it for the lasting history in forums that highlights your most blatant hypocrisy to date. You make it just too easy.

Here's another thing I just thought of.

People are limited to five accounts per your whole entire lifetime, right? That means there is already a limit on First Land you can get (without pretending to be someone else entirely) of five times, on each account.

So one would assume that they would build into their First Land releases the fact that a certain number of people are going to go on to get a second (or third, fourth, or fifth) account, and then get First Land with them all, right? (And maybe sometimes all at once, so that their land will be together.)

What they are NOT building into it is when people make a bunch of fake alts, to buy First Land, and then delete them, and do it over and over.

That's different, and that IS unethical.

coco

Yeah, that is why they call it First Five Land: Land for the Fiveless.

Talk about grasping for Strawbearries.

But Coco, that's for right now. What if down the line, there are more new players and there are limted amount of first land?

I wanted another 512 when I got my first land and there was some around me, but I understood that I am one person and even if I made alts, they still didn't make me more than one person. If I had First Land, or Land for the Landless, then I would not be able to get First Land again, because it would no longer be First Land, it would be Second Land.



Dogspot, I am confused as to what this has to do with First Land. If you are saying that a number of different people are responding, then I'm really confused. Coco asked for people's opinions. Shoud there be a limit to the number of responses? Should I have not responded? Should Coco not be responding to people and raising questions that other people have to respond to?

All of this seems to be the nature of discussion.

Are you really this obtuse Strawberrycocoanuts??

As Beau said, and I am pretty sure he is correct, those alts count against your max, whether you delete them or set them up painting elephants pink.

Oh, and YOU aren't making assumptions about what's going in my
head? How hypocritical.



OMG, call out the forum police. Dogspot is posting again.

For fuck's sake, Nolan, this is a discussion forum and I, like you are permitted to comment on people's posts. Regardless of whether they were addressing me or not.



Fine. Why don't you put me on ignore and make a grand public statement about it? By the power of Greyskull, PLEASE put me on ignore.

I decided to get another MAINLY CAUSE IT WAS SITTING THERE RIGHT NEXT TO MINE.

I HAVE bought it at market value. I bought it at market value from the girl when she sold hers and I bought it at market value from Garnet after she acquired the first land on the other side of me.

My only other hope, barring somebody next door selling theirs was to wait for that new land on the other side to be turned into First Land, and then buy it.

Then one of the neighbor's plots became First Land again, so I had Strawbearry buy that rather than buying from the Linden land once it became First Land, or, if it went on auction, watch to see if the person who bought the action would offer it for sale.

Yes, I wanted mature land for my original plot, and no, I don't plan to resell it. The next thing I wanted was land NEXT to my mature land. I saved up for it, and bought it, at market value. The next thing I wanted was, I had this alt Strawbearry, and she had 512 coming to her, and I was keeping a lookout for that. (As well as other neighbors selling their land.) When I saw the land next to me as First Land, she bought it.

My drone - my compartmentalizing myself - etc. - heavens! If I had known that having an ALT was such a horrible deal that you couldn't talk about it, or refer to it or any of your personnas as "her," without causing people to suggest that you are creepy and possibly cracked, I would never have told a one of you I even HAD an alt, much less attempted to talk about the different actions taken by each.

coco

"Dear, me, sir! If I'd known you'd think I was a lunatic because I urinated upon you and subsequently named the puddle Herbet, I'd never have considered you as a target!"

ding ding ding BINGO

Lecktor, I will never ever ever eat pig again.

PM me, if ya want April. I've had enough.