Sculli said:
1. Cute, but unnecessary. It comes down to the purpose of an argument. There are essentially three types of people who argue.
- Attention whores.
- Fighters.
- Reformers.
People who actually care about the subject in question also argue.
Putting a name on a speculated person who may have lost a "job" is ridiculous to the argument.
I checked your earlier responses to my points, Sculli, and found them lacking.
(I'll use the numbering you decided to add to my argument for your convenience)
I stand by "my" point 1: the problem with RMT is not that it puts gil in the hands of people who didn't earn it. That is an annoyance. The problem is still "my" point 3: there is an economy that you have to buy your way into.
Part of that economy is the monopoly on specific nm drops, such as the O.kote. You are wrong to believe that if these were not monopolized, then the prices would be as high anyway. True, real players would camp and sell them, but real players also do other things. Real players log off and sleep (or go Away and sleep). Real players camping would create a chance for other real players to camp as well, without fighting highly specific claim-training and 3rd party tools.
Thus, if the price went to 10 mil on O. Kote, people could camp it rather than buy it. As things are, if the gilsellers who monopolize that drop were to raise the price, people would have to pay it.
Economics is not about getting money to stay in your account, it's getting your money to move and make more money. The monopolies held by gilsellers prevent others from using money to make money there. To access those items, one must pay a premium in gil.
Alternatively, one can buy gil from the gilsellers so as to afford their items and then the money goes right back to them, to be sold to someone else next time Rmtcaptainx gets a drop off Mee Deggi.
Finally, this idea that maybe someone was punished for getting conned by Cokken. Why are people holding on to this? Here's my serious hypothetical:
Two people are poor in China. Person 1 makes a little money working for IGE. Person 2 does not. Cokken tricks person 1. Person 1 is fired. We might consider Cokken responsible in some abstract moral way for the fact that person 1 has a slightly harder life. Person 2 gets that job.
Why might we not similarly consider Cokken responsible in some abstract moral way for the fact that person 2 has a slightly "easier" (?) life.
Perhaps people consider the sudden nature of the firing to be more harmful to person 1. But isn't the sudden windfall of a new source of income equally beneficial to person 2?
Finally, person 1's employers are acting against the ToS, and Cokken, it seems, intentionally targeted that group. Doesn't this indicate a sense of moral guidance?
