Jump to content


[Edited]


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
21 replies to this topic

PerpetuumRex #1 Posted 19 November 2016 - 02:05 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21248 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

[Edited]

 

 


Edited by FireflyDivision, 20 November 2016 - 12:18 AM.
This post has been edited by a member of the moderation team, due to inappropriate content. An official notification has been sent. -FireflyDivision


Nokkeli #2 Posted 19 November 2016 - 02:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18028 battles
  • 1,052
  • [SWEDH] SWEDH
  • Member since:
    11-22-2012
Good job WG for using PerpetuumRex and this topic to distract us from the other shills so that they can continue their work in peace! :great:

SuedKAT #3 Posted 19 November 2016 - 02:25 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,355
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014
Reading something like this really makes me understand a lot of stupid stuff you see on the news.

Homer_J #4 Posted 19 November 2016 - 02:27 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28206 battles
  • 29,472
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

Also beware of shills from other games, you can easily tell them because all they ever post is criticism of WoT despite spending many hours a day browsing the forum of a game they passionately hate.  Another tell-tale sign is they will accuse others of being paid by or somehow employed by Wargaming.

 

Forum rules do not permit me to name and shame these people however.


Edited by Homer_J, 19 November 2016 - 02:35 PM.


somegras #5 Posted 19 November 2016 - 02:32 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 48651 battles
  • 8,706
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013
Did I miss something?

SuedKAT #6 Posted 19 November 2016 - 02:43 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,355
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View Postsomegras, on 19 November 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

Did I miss something?

 

Nah just someone that have found 2 posters on a random forum that don't agree with him and instead of realizing that they simply don't agree with him he of course assume that he is the smartest person alive and everyone that don't agree with him is paid by WG, the usual stuff.

somegras #7 Posted 19 November 2016 - 02:48 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 48651 battles
  • 8,706
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostSuedKAT, on 19 November 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

Nah just someone that have found 2 posters on a random forum that don't agree with him and instead of realizing that they simply don't agree with him he of course assume that he is the smartest person alive and everyone that don't agree with him is paid by WG, the usual stuff.

 

Fair enough.



PerpetuumRex #8 Posted 19 November 2016 - 03:44 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21248 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

View PostSuedKAT, on 19 November 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

 

Nah just someone that have found 2 posters on a random forum that don't agree with him and instead of realizing that they simply don't agree with him he of course assume that he is the smartest person alive and everyone that don't agree with him is paid by WG, the usual stuff.

 

aaand here is our number 3, always following the same pattern: DISMISSIVE BEHAVIOR so that others get distracted.As you can see, he MINIMIZES my message and he already assumes I found 2 posters on random forums and he already knows that they didn't agree with me. Of course this is NOT the truth. The truth is those 2 people always act in the same way, and always aim to persuade others from paying attention to what is being discussed.

FYI buddy: there were PLENTY of people who didn't agree with me and had arguments to backup their opinion. I appreciate that, because that's what a forum is all about.

What I do not appreciate are people like you who are counter-productive and always try to belittle people who have a different opinion than the "WG STANDARD"

 

All you've done is prove my point. Glad I could fish you out as well.



PerpetuumRex #9 Posted 19 November 2016 - 03:45 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21248 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

View PostSuedKAT, on 19 November 2016 - 01:25 PM, said:

Reading something like this really makes me understand a lot of stupid stuff you see on the news.

 

You should really stop watching the news

FluffyRedFox #10 Posted 19 November 2016 - 03:51 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 22953 battles
  • 8,275
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012


CrySpy #11 Posted 19 November 2016 - 04:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22321 battles
  • 1,001
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011

I bet everyone posting in this thread has a high chance of becoming a shill. You just have to disagree with OP in a certain way and you're on his list. :trollface:

I disagree with OP, the people in question act that way to uninformed opinions, salty people adn the like. Since OP is very salty this will become a very entertaining thread <3



SuedKAT #12 Posted 19 November 2016 - 04:07 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,355
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View PostPerpetuumRex, on 19 November 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

 

aaand here is our number 3, always following the same pattern: DISMISSIVE BEHAVIOR so that others get distracted.As you can see, he MINIMIZES my message and he already assumes I found 2 posters on random forums and he already knows that they didn't agree with me. Of course this is NOT the truth. The truth is those 2 people always act in the same way, and always aim to persuade others from paying attention to what is being discussed.

FYI buddy: there were PLENTY of people who didn't agree with me and had arguments to backup their opinion. I appreciate that, because that's what a forum is all about.

What I do not appreciate are people like you who are counter-productive and always try to belittle people who have a different opinion than the "WG STANDARD"

 

All you've done is prove my point. Glad I could fish you out as well.

 

Glad that you found my 3k post to be to your liking, I assumed you checked them since you could spot a pattern. I have no intention to minimize your message at all, firstly since I don't need to due to your aproach which frankly come of as rather childish and secondly since I quite often post "anti WG" posts but I guess you overlooked that when you whent through all my post earlier. 

 

You see, most around these forums tend to respond to stupid with irony/sarcasm, which is why you get such lovely replies on stuff like this and without even looking I'm guessing your previous threads. The thread you linked is such an example, I'm all for buffing weak premium tanks, but the aproach the OP took is beyond ludicrus.



PerpetuumRex #13 Posted 19 November 2016 - 04:07 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21248 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

View PostCrySpy, on 19 November 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

I bet everyone posting in this thread has a high chance of becoming a shill. You just have to disagree with OP in a certain way and you're on his list. :trollface:

I disagree with OP, the people in question act that way to uninformed opinions, salty people adn the like. Since OP is very salty this will become a very entertaining thread <3

 

So in other words, you vouch for the people in question that they are NOT shills, and you are 100% certain?

PerpetuumRex #14 Posted 19 November 2016 - 04:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21248 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

View PostSuedKAT, on 19 November 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

 

Glad that you found my 3k post to be to your liking, I assumed you checked them since you could spot a pattern. I have no intention to minimize your message at all, firstly since I don't need to due to your aproach which frankly come of as rather childish and secondly since I quite often post "anti WG" posts but I guess you overlooked that when you whent through all my post earlier. 

 

You see, most around these forums tend to respond to stupid with irony/sarcasm, which is why you get such lovely replies on stuff like this and without even looking I'm guessing your previous threads. The thread you linked is such an example, I'm all for buffing weak premium tanks, but the aproach the OP took is beyond ludicrus.

 

You made a flawed analogy to prove your point. The services/merchandise that you are buying from WG, and respectively from your local dealer are not even REMOTELY similar.

You did so sarcastically and with utter disrespect for the OP's point of view.  

What would you call that?



CrySpy #15 Posted 19 November 2016 - 04:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22321 battles
  • 1,001
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011

You could day that I do.

 

Why? Because the other alternative is just plain stupid. If you know they are shills you have to provide some actual proof and not act like the king of the salt mines.



SuedKAT #16 Posted 19 November 2016 - 04:22 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,355
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View PostPerpetuumRex, on 19 November 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

 

You made a flawed analogy to prove your point. The services/merchandise that you are buying from WG, and respectively from your local dealer are not even REMOTELY similar.

You did so sarcastically and with utter disrespect for the OP's point of view.  

What would you call that?

 

Something you buy in WoT is called digital goods, there are plenty of rules and regulations revolving such products, both in the EU but also in Europe as a whole. When you buy digital goods you accept these terms and regulations, which is why these is also mailed to the mail you've registered the account with. This means that you own a virtual tank which is in a specific state and the suplier is under no obligations to buff, change or do anything revolving it, if the enviroment this tank is used in change so be it, you've accepted it in the state you bought it, just as you buy a car in the state it is and can't walk into a dealrship having it upgraded for free or returned on the terms the OP of that thread describes.

 

I would call that reality.



Homer_J #17 Posted 19 November 2016 - 04:37 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28206 battles
  • 29,472
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostPerpetuumRex, on 19 November 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

 

So in other words, you vouch for the people in question that they are NOT shills, and you are 100% certain?

 

I can.  I'm not so sure about you though, 80% certain at the moment I'd say.



PerpetuumRex #18 Posted 19 November 2016 - 11:05 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21248 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

View PostSuedKAT, on 19 November 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

 

Something you buy in WoT is called digital goods, there are plenty of rules and regulations revolving such products, both in the EU but also in Europe as a whole. When you buy digital goods you accept these terms and regulations, which is why these is also mailed to the mail you've registered the account with. This means that you own a virtual tank which is in a specific state and the suplier is under no obligations to buff, change or do anything revolving it, if the enviroment this tank is used in change so be it, you've accepted it in the state you bought it, just as you buy a car in the state it is and can't walk into a dealrship having it upgraded for free or returned on the terms the OP of that thread describes.

 

I would call that reality.

 

If you would have bothered to read a just a few paragraphs from WoT's EULA you would have known that:

1. When you buy a premium tank, the tank is not yours, it is still WG's tank. So, no, you don't own the virtual tank.

2. WG does NOT hold patents on the virtual tanks they sell, therefore you cannot legally refer to them as "buying virtual goods", you are actually buying the right to use said goods on their server.

3. WG can decide at any point to stop granting you access to where the virtual tank is stored, without explanation and without them incurring any penalty.

 

So No, it's NOTHING like the real world in this scenario. 

 



PerpetuumRex #19 Posted 19 November 2016 - 11:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21248 battles
  • 305
  • Member since:
    07-06-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 19 November 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

 

I can.  I'm not so sure about you though, 80% certain at the moment I'd say.

 

Oh don't worry about me. Also since you vouch for them, why don't you share with the rest of us fine people exactly from what position are you vouching for them? because I was under the impression that this was a virtual discussion room in which people are complete strangers, but here you are vouching for not one but two. Guess that makes you what exactly? Their colleague or just some other schmuck who doesn't know what he's talking about?



SuedKAT #20 Posted 19 November 2016 - 11:19 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12154 battles
  • 6,355
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-21-2014

View PostPerpetuumRex, on 19 November 2016 - 11:05 PM, said:

 

If you would have bothered to read a just a few paragraphs from WoT's EULA you would have known that:

1. When you buy a premium tank, the tank is not yours, it is still WG's tank. So, no, you don't own the virtual tank.

2. WG does NOT hold patents on the virtual tanks they sell, therefore you cannot legally refer to them as "buying virtual goods", you are actually buying the right to use said goods on their server.

3. WG can decide at any point to stop granting you access to where the virtual tank is stored, without explanation and without them incurring any penalty.

 

So No, it's NOTHING like the real world in this scenario. 

 

 

I think you need to go back to the thread in question and check what your acctually discussing since that reply is weird in more ways than one.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users