Q u o t e: If you want to challenge any of the logical reasoning pointed out on the archive as too subjective to be relevant then go ahead, pick something out and explain how it only applies to a narrow mindset.
You just don't get it (or are acting like a troll). "Too subjective"? That's asking for a subjective value judgment on how subjective something is...
Think about that for a minute.
Q u o t e: If instead this is an argument over the validity of non-mathmatical argumentation, then this also is not the thread for that. All non-mathmatical arguements are subjective. Any of the threads which argue over any topic related to D3 are subjective, some more or less than this one. (except of course a mathmatical argument involving a variable named D3) Through logical reasoning we can deduce which logically construted arguments are superior and which are inferior. Finding a hole in logical argument has been commonplace in debate since the very idea of debate has existed.
Logic has absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm not questioning the "validity of non-mathematical argumentation"... just read the title of your thread. It's asking for opinion, not logical arguments. There is absolutely nothing objectively logical about the word "should".
Q u o t e: Back to square one, all of the arguements presented thus far against a subscription+expansion based model are logically inferior to the reasoning presented in their paired counterarguments found in the archive. If you feel the previous statment is false, then pick one and supply your logic.
No they are not, and no I won't. You provide arguments against arguments and seem to think that represents something logical. Should I have control over what choices you have available to you? No. Just like you should not have control over what choices I have available to me. You want different things than me, and no logical arguments of any kind will render either opinion "inferior". Suggesting that shows a rather arrogant mindset.
In reply #12 you are dismissive of SP players because your values are different.
In reply #29 you are dismissive of another person's perspective because of ... flippant arrogance? Applying your own financial perspective as a universal standard? Either way is very narrow-minded.
In reply #97 (responding to #96) you ignore significant parts of the post you are responding to, while responding to other parts by talking about value (which is obviously a subjective matter).
Then, in your shining moment you say this:
Q u o t e: Just paying for the bandwidth isn't all you'd be entitled to, how about a fair, balanced, non-obsolete, and relatively hack free online environment.
Ah, entitlements. Somehow you seem to feel entitled to things just because you are willing to pay for them... As if that (the $'s) was the absolute deciding factor. You are entitled to make your own choices, but you are not entitled to force others into offering you what you want. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions... including opinions on how things "should" be.