The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

Luka504 · 2016-03-29 09:25:22

I clearly pointed out that staff should be giving out these small gifts to different users to avoid favoritism or nepotism. That's exactly what you quoted.

Oh well then, realise the following:
Who will receive the presents? Random people? Its still unfair how every year a random person gets something for free, and the chance someone will get a gift twice is possible.
What are the presents? If its something small then whats the flipping point? A cake block? A world?
Any presents the staff can give is either unfair or something mostly useless.

Should we even be considering electing a candidate that doesn't understand all of the issues facing the players? I know that I wouldn't

Should we even consider voting for someone who is pushing me out of the game so he can have more votes? I know i wouldn't.

I would suggest as a counterpoint that campaigns be retired at some point, with no new ones added, but players who had previously attempted them would be able to continue trying to beat them for a limited time.

Maybe? This is a good idea but removing ALL campaigns and starting from scratch again sounds pretty dumb....

Waiting to release bug fixes until new game content is ready will potentially delay critical bug fixes that affect a player's experience negatively. Should players have to wait for a smiley or block that could be weeks or months away to be able to play the game properly as it is?

I swear to god you are putting words in that i never said. I never said that bug fixes MUST be updated with the content, i just want more content, but bugs CAN be fixed alongside with them. You can make seperate bug fix updates if there are any bugs to be fixed.

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-29 09:45:00

Luka504 wrote:

I clearly pointed out that staff should be giving out these small gifts to different users to avoid favoritism or nepotism. That's exactly what you quoted.
Oh well then, realise the following:
Who will receive the presents? Random people? Its still unfair how every year a random person gets something for free, and the chance someone will get a gift twice is possible.
What are the presents? If its something small then whats the flipping point? A cake block? A world?
Any presents the staff can give is either unfair or something mostly useless.

They should be mostly useless. Occasionally giving out small gifts that don't really affect gameplay can only serve to foster goodwill. It's a trivial matter to keep a list of players who have received things and check any new would-be recipients against it. It may not be entirely fair, but in the long run it can help bring Everybody Edits closer to equity in the future. Receiving a tiny token of appreciation like a small world or something along those lines can stimulate players to purchase gems to support the game. When more gems are purchased, the game makes more money and can afford to lower the prices of some things, allowing more users to have a chance at getting them. If a majority or even a large minority of players feel that this is unfair, then I would be completely willing to take a step back and reevaluate my stance on the issue. A campaign that can't evolve in the face of new information is not a campaign worth voting for.

Luka504 wrote:

Should we even be considering electing a candidate that doesn't understand all of the issues facing the players? I know that I wouldn't
Should we even consider voting for someone who is pushing me out of the game so he can have more votes? I know i wouldn't.

I'm not trying to take your votes for my own gain, I'm hoping that people who have voted for you in informal polls realize that you don't have enough of a grasp on the issues to be worth a primary vote, and instead vote for someone with a fleshed out platform and a strong understanding of the issues that we as players face. A party name and a flag do not a good campaign make.

Luka504 wrote:

I would suggest as a counterpoint that campaigns be retired at some point, with no new ones added, but players who had previously attempted them would be able to continue trying to beat them for a limited time.
Maybe? This is a good idea but removing ALL campaigns and starting from scratch again sounds pretty dumb....

This is mainly a personal preference, and one that I would be willing to budge on given popular demand, but you'll have to understand that neither of us are likely to change our positions on it. You see my position as "dumb," while I see yours as not really existing.

Luka504 wrote:

Waiting to release bug fixes until new game content is ready will potentially delay critical bug fixes that affect a player's experience negatively. Should players have to wait for a smiley or block that could be weeks or months away to be able to play the game properly as it is?
I swear to god you are putting words in that i never said. I never said that bug fixes MUST be updated with the content, i just want more content, but bugs CAN be fixed alongside with them. You can make seperate bug fix updates if there are any bugs to be fixed.

All I have to go on is what you have said. If you mean to say something but don't, I cannot address it. Now that you have completely reversed your previous position, I don't disagree with you. There should be both bug fixes and content updates. That is what I have been saying since my very first post in this campaign, as you have both quoted and argued against. I'm glad to see that the Nerf Party is evolving on this issue, and hopefully other parties can take a page from your playbook.

Luka504 · 2016-03-29 12:22:19

All I have to go on is what you have said. If you mean to say something but don't, I cannot address it. Now that you have completely reversed your previous position, I don't disagree with you. There should be both bug fixes and content updates. That is what I have been saying since my very first post in this campaign, as you have both quoted and argued against. I'm glad to see that the Nerf Party is evolving on this issue, and hopefully other parties can take a page from your playbook.

...
Wow. Congratulations you are a news reporter since you keep making stuff up.
Seriously though, i never changed opinions, i still believe EE should focus on content since bug fixes usually arent that big of a deal. So please stop making stuff up.

This is mainly a personal preference, and one that I would be willing to budge on given popular demand, but you'll have to understand that neither of us are likely to change our positions on it. You see my position as "dumb," while I see yours as not really existing.

Well this is pretty jerkish.

I'm not trying to take your votes for my own gain, I'm hoping that people who have voted for you in informal polls realize that you don't have enough of a grasp on the issues to be worth a primary vote, and instead vote for someone with a fleshed out platform and a strong understanding of the issues that we as players face. A party name and a flag do not a good campaign make.

So you do not want votes?

Stop lying please this banner is a beg for votes.
And i do indeed understand the questions, i just made a mistake while anwsering my questions since i didnt know then.

They should be mostly useless. Occasionally giving out small gifts that don't really affect gameplay can only serve to foster goodwill. It's a trivial matter to keep a list of players who have received things and check any new would-be recipients against it. It may not be entirely fair, but in the long run it can help bring Everybody Edits closer to equity in the future. Receiving a tiny token of appreciation like a small world or something along those lines can stimulate players to purchase gems to support the game. When more gems are purchased, the game makes more money and can afford to lower the prices of some things, allowing more users to have a chance at getting them. If a majority or even a large minority of players feel that this is unfair, then I would be completely willing to take a step back and reevaluate my stance on the issue. A campaign that can't evolve in the face of new information is not a campaign worth voting for.

What sort of dumb logic is this!? People will buy gems just beacuse a random person gave them something they cannot even use!?
Thats like giving someone who is suffering from diabetes candy and he will give you his appartement.

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-29 16:43:16

Luka504 wrote:

All I have to go on is what you have said. If you mean to say something but don't, I cannot address it. Now that you have completely reversed your previous position, I don't disagree with you. There should be both bug fixes and content updates. That is what I have been saying since my very first post in this campaign, as you have both quoted and argued against. I'm glad to see that the Nerf Party is evolving on this issue, and hopefully other parties can take a page from your playbook.
...
Wow. Congratulations you are a news reporter since you keep making stuff up.
Seriously though, i never changed opinions, i still believe EE should focus on content since bug fixes usually arent that big of a deal. So please stop making stuff up.

Please tell me what I made up. This is a direct quote from you.

Luka504 wrote:

[On what updates should focus on] Content, definetly. We dont want to get hyped for an update and then its some lame bug fixes no one cares about.

You have gone from that stance to the following one.

Luka504 wrote:

I never said im against bug fixes, i just think there should be more content. Hey here's a wacky idea: Release bug fixes with the dang content.

So now you have gone from bug fixes being "lame" updates that "no one cares about" to not being against them. You also are advocating here to wait to release bug fixes alongside new content, which would undoubtedly end up delaying one of the two until the other is ready.

As your latest post states, you have fully "evolved" on this issue to support standalone bug fixes. You've gone from attacking bug fixes to supporting them since I mentioned that part of your platform.

Luka504 wrote:

This is mainly a personal preference, and one that I would be willing to budge on given popular demand, but you'll have to understand that neither of us are likely to change our positions on it. You see my position as "dumb," while I see yours as not really existing.
Well this is pretty jerkish.

You call my opinion dumb, and when I note your avoidance regarding the issue, I'm "jerkish"? Flesh out an opinion and we can debate that, but don't get your feelings hurt over difference of opinion.

Luka504 wrote:

I'm not trying to take your votes for my own gain, I'm hoping that people who have voted for you in informal polls realize that you don't have enough of a grasp on the issues to be worth a primary vote, and instead vote for someone with a fleshed out platform and a strong understanding of the issues that we as players face. A party name and a flag do not a good campaign make.
So you do not want votes?

Stop lying please this banner is a beg for votes.
And i do indeed understand the questions, i just made a mistake while anwsering my questions since i didnt know then.

If you take the poster in context with the rest of my post, which you conveniently ignored, then you would see that the "THEM" being referred to is candidates who don't have the players as their first priority. Of course I would be glad to accept them into the GrEEn Party, but if I told people to unequivocally support me, I would be just as disingenuous as any other candidate. I want players to consider their options thoroughly and come to their own decision. No one here is incapable of this kind of thought, and I would find it reprehensible to think that any candidate knows what the people want better than the people themselves.

Which is it? Do you "understand the questions"? Or do you not know? When did you take the time to educate yourself on these pressing issues? How exactly did you come to the conclusions listed in your introductory post without understanding the questions at the time? I don't feel that the real issues that we as players face are so unimportant as to warrant flippant, uninformed responses.

Luka504 wrote:

They should be mostly useless. Occasionally giving out small gifts that don't really affect gameplay can only serve to foster goodwill. It's a trivial matter to keep a list of players who have received things and check any new would-be recipients against it. It may not be entirely fair, but in the long run it can help bring Everybody Edits closer to equity in the future. Receiving a tiny token of appreciation like a small world or something along those lines can stimulate players to purchase gems to support the game. When more gems are purchased, the game makes more money and can afford to lower the prices of some things, allowing more users to have a chance at getting them. If a majority or even a large minority of players feel that this is unfair, then I would be completely willing to take a step back and reevaluate my stance on the issue. A campaign that can't evolve in the face of new information is not a campaign worth voting for.
What sort of dumb logic is this!? People will buy gems just beacuse a random person gave them something they cannot even use!?
Thats like giving someone who is suffering from diabetes candy and he will give you his appartement.

Assuming I can decipher what you mean, you seem to be asking why users would support the game after being given free gifts. I suggest asking almost anyone in the field of marketing or public relations how well giving out trinkets or other relatively worthless gifts increases brand perception and customers' willingness to spend money. You'll find that it almost always is a success. The best part is that if it doesn't work, nothing of value was lost.

Pyromaniac · 2016-03-29 16:49:58

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

As much as I dislike candidates lying, I don't think a change of opinion is necessarily a bad thing. Many candidates and voters alike have changed their opinions in the past and people should be allowed to evolve in light of new information. Now if a candidate lied to say they were always on a side they weren't, that would be irresponsible and deplorable.

But look at the backlash Hillary Clinton got for deciding that she was a moderate in some states, and progressive in others!

Shouldn't our candidates be held to the same standard as those in the race for national leadership?

Just look at how seriously people take this game, it must mean that its important.... Right?

Zumza · 2016-03-29 17:14:28

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

Zumza believes that contest winners should receive exclusive content (presumably smileys or blocks), which seems to fly in the face of equality. He also believes that name changes should cost gems, disenfranchising users who don't wish to or aren't able to pay for them.

I think people who contribute to the community can't be treated just like guests.

Q: Who wishes for a name change?
A: People who play much and for a long time. There are lots of campaigns rewords(and I wish to make them bigger) and the connection rewards too.
You don't need to pay for getting gems. Nowadays you can get gems by having fun!

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-29 18:06:59

Pyromaniac wrote:

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:
As much as I dislike candidates lying, I don't think a change of opinion is necessarily a bad thing. Many candidates and voters alike have changed their opinions in the past and people should be allowed to evolve in light of new information. Now if a candidate lied to say they were always on a side they weren't, that would be irresponsible and deplorable.
But look at the backlash Hillary Clinton got for deciding that she was a moderate in some states, and progressive in others!
Shouldn't our candidates be held to the same standard as those in the race for national leadership?
Just look at how seriously people take this game, it must mean that its important.... Right?

Evolving on issues and making a conscious change in your platform is different from doing complete backtracks and pretending you were always one thing or another, or always supported something.

---

Zumza wrote:

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:
Zumza believes that contest winners should receive exclusive content (presumably smileys or blocks), which seems to fly in the face of equality. He also believes that name changes should cost gems, disenfranchising users who don't wish to or aren't able to pay for them.
I think people who contribute to the community can't be treated just like guests.
Q: Who wishes for a name change?
A: People who play much and for a long time. There are lots of campaigns rewords(and I wish to make them bigger) and the connection rewards too.
You don't need to pay for getting gems. Nowadays you can get gems by having fun!

There's a difference between treating level creators like "guests" and giving exclusive content people who are more skilled at a part of the game that doesn't even fit in with its original ethos.

As far as I know, the only way to get gems reliably and fairly is to pay for them, not by "having fun." I have had my fair share of fun in Everybody Edits and I currently have a grand total of one gem, which is left over from buying beta years ago.

Making campaign rewards bigger only serves to widen the gap between the 1% and the 99% that has plagued society for too long. When you give a small amount of players lavish gifts and concessions that aren't available to the majority, you end up with an oligarchy of sorts where there is a tiny group of elite members that lord their status over the masses.

N1KF · 2016-03-29 18:12:21

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

Making campaign rewards bigger only serves to widen the gap between the 1% and the 99% that has plagued society for too long. When you give a small amount of players lavish gifts and concessions that aren't available to the majority, you end up with an oligarchy of sorts where there is a tiny group of elite members that lord their status over the masses.

I think it is fine to reward players gems. I do think, however, think that level creators (rather than just level players) should be able to earn gems for their work too. Maybe re-add the "featured" tab and reward gems for getting on there.

Luka504 · 2016-03-29 19:34:36

Oh sweet lord 32OrtonEdge32dh you are just gonna argue on almost pointless parts that arent even there.
1. I never changed opinions. OK? I said the focus should be on content. I still think that. Before you shout ,,But the bugs ruin experience,, i said we should focus on content. Now you are gonna shout ,,But you are changing positions blehelej...,, Im not. Ok? Even if i did this is no legitimate reason for people to not vote for me. Content is more important to ME, you have a different view so enjoy it.
2. Oh you were talking about different opinions? Well i thought you were insulting me or something. Huh. Also dont mention ,,oh wow luka didnt understand some dumb question we better not vote for him,,. Just dont.
3. You are not the only one since both me and Zumza think about the players. So please shut up.
4. Yeah sure. Stop saying people will buy things beacuse they were given something useless. Do you even know people? People will just enter some 50x50 which is useless, and most likely think:
,,Wow, what cheapskates.,, not ,,Oh wow i got a 50x50 i better buy 200 gems right now and spend them on nothing!,, Fun fact: I did google it and you are right, people will probably spend more if they get something for free. But fun fact 2: Guess what the main method of buying stuff in EE is? Energy. Sweet free energy. Sure people will be willing to spend more on another world, but wouldnt it be more logical for people to wait a few hours rather than spend actual money? If you were offered something that costs 4 dollars or the same exact thing for free, we both know which one you will choose. Theory broken.

This is probably the last response im gonna give, unless you actuly make some arguments that arent about ,,me changing opinions,,.

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-29 19:59:14

Luka504 wrote:

Oh sweet lord 32OrtonEdge32dh you are just gonna argue on almost pointless parts that arent even there.
1. I never changed opinions. OK? I said the focus should be on content. I still think that. Before you shout ,,But the bugs ruin experience,, i said we should focus on content. Now you are gonna shout ,,But you are changing positions blehelej...,, Im not. Ok? Even if i did this is no legitimate reason for people to not vote for me. Content is more important to ME, you have a different view so enjoy it.
2. Oh you were talking about different opinions? Well i thought you were insulting me or something. Huh. Also dont mention ,,oh wow luka didnt understand some dumb question we better not vote for him,,. Just dont.
3. You are not the only one since both me and Zumza think about the players. So please shut up.
4. Yeah sure. Stop saying people will buy things beacuse they were given something useless. Do you even know people? People will just enter some 50x50 which is useless, and most likely think:
,,Wow, what cheapskates.,, not ,,Oh wow i got a 50x50 i better buy 200 gems right now and spend them on nothing!,, Fun fact: I did google it and you are right, people will probably spend more if they get something for free. But fun fact 2: Guess what the main method of buying stuff in EE is? Energy. Sweet free energy. Sure people will be willing to spend more on another world, but wouldnt it be more logical for people to wait a few hours rather than spend actual money? If you were offered something that costs 4 dollars or the same exact thing for free, we both know which one you will choose. Theory broken.
This is probably the last response im gonna give, unless you actuly make some arguments that arent about ,,me changing opinions,,.

If you believe so strongly that what you said hasn't changed, then I suppose I don't have to argue it any further. I've already made my point.

I still believe that candidates who don't take the time to conduct campaigns in a professional manner do not deserve consideration. As players, we take the problems we face seriously, and campaigns should reflect that.

You and Zumza, among others, do indeed claim to run on platforms for the people. I disagree, and I have already elaborated on my reasons as to why I disagree. Telling a fellow candidate to "shut up" because you disagree or because you don't want to expand on your platform is neither professional nor indicative of the type of person I would want to be my "not-President."

You tell me to "stop saying" that small gifts would stimulate the gem economy, but then you tell me that I am right. Which is it? It's quite obvious that using energy is preferable to gems, due to its free nature, but many users will attest to their impatience when it comes to getting new worlds, blocks, or smileys. When an option to get an item instantly is present, many will take that option, even if it costs money. And just as I have already said, even if this plan does not turn out to be a success, it doesn't matter, because no money is lost through giving away small gifts and any goodwill fostered is still a net gain. No "theory broken," just "theory not thought about critically."

This is nowhere near the last response I will give, because I am tirelessly campaigning for the people. I will not stoop to the level of personal attacks, but I will respond to any disagreement, criticism, or attack levied at me because I believe it is important to let the people see our views and let their views be seen by us candidates. If you ever find that you cannot keep up with the election, it would be a simple matter to instruct your supporters to vote for a candidate or party you feel can continue campaigning and not bow out in the face of pressure.

Luka504 · 2016-03-29 20:24:10

I still believe that candidates who don't take the time to conduct campaigns in a professional manner do not deserve consideration. As players, we take the problems we face seriously, and campaigns should reflect that.

If you said this to onjit then its understandable.
But i put a lot into this campaign i have, and if i ,,didnt treat it profesionally,, this post wouldnt even be flipping made.
Since seriously, i have to explain everything in full detail to you otherwise you nitpick on the smallest details.
But your arguments are still just groundless things that dont change anything important.

You and Zumza, among others, do indeed claim to run on platforms for the people. I disagree, and I have already elaborated on my reasons as to why I disagree. Telling a fellow candidate to "shut up" because you disagree or because you don't want to expand on your platform is neither professional nor indicative of the type of person I would want to be my "not-President."

This is a good example since i never said for you to shut your mouth entirely, i said to shut up about the fact ,,you are the only people pleaser in this entire topic,, since its so invalid.

You tell me to "stop saying" that small gifts would stimulate the gem economy, but then you tell me that I am right. Which is it? It's quite obvious that using energy is preferable to gems, due to its free nature, but many users will attest to their impatience when it comes to getting new worlds, blocks, or smileys. When an option to get an item instantly is present, many will take that option, even if it costs money. And just as I have already said, even if this plan does not turn out to be a success, it doesn't matter, because no money is lost through giving away small gifts and any goodwill fostered is still a net gain. No "theory broken," just "theory not thought about critically."

No you havent said anything to change my mind, since there is one thing that proves people are willing to try something thats free more:

This is a chart that shows how many people choose a free version rather than a paid one. As you can see, the Free-to-play keeps rising from 2008, but Pay-to-Play numbers is roughly the same as it was in 2008.
Also ,,But u used dat chart for paying to play det game bloehelum,, is invalid since this shows how people are unwilling to pay for something even if something costs 1 dollar.
Theory rebroken, enjoy.

Bimps · 2016-03-29 20:36:16

Pyromaniac wrote:

Same goes for Bimps! He has stated in the past is dislike for Jawapa, and now the public sees him siding with him?

BREAKING NEWS: peoples opinions cannot change! whaaaaaaaaat

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-29 20:48:02

Luka504 wrote:

I still believe that candidates who don't take the time to conduct campaigns in a professional manner do not deserve consideration. As players, we take the problems we face seriously, and campaigns should reflect that.
If you said this to onjit then its understandable.
But i put a lot into this campaign i have, and if i ,,didnt treat it profesionally,, this post wouldnt even be flipping made.
Since seriously, i have to explain everything in full detail to you otherwise you nitpick on the smallest details.
But your arguments are still just groundless things that dont change anything important.

If you approached your campaign professionally, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You'll notice that, so far, no other serious candidate has caught my ire. This is not because of disagreements between me and you; I disagree very fundamentally with many of the candidates currently in the race. We have been having this back-and-forth because I took umbrage with your platform, or lack thereof, especially after you claimed that you were for the people when you didn't even have a serious answer for many of the pressing issues facing us as players today. It's good to know that you still don't believe that discussing staff gifts, updates, etc. aren't "important." I hoped that would change as a result of our discussion, but apparently it has not.

Luka504 wrote:

You and Zumza, among others, do indeed claim to run on platforms for the people. I disagree, and I have already elaborated on my reasons as to why I disagree. Telling a fellow candidate to "shut up" because you disagree or because you don't want to expand on your platform is neither professional nor indicative of the type of person I would want to be my "not-President."
This is a good example since i never said for you to shut your mouth entirely, i said to shut up about the fact ,,you are the only people pleaser in this entire topic,, since its so invalid.

Once again, you elaborate on what you meant after the fact. Why do you continually expect me to understand what you are trying to say when you don't actually say it? I would advise you, candidate to candidate, to either state what you mean the first time you make a statement, or don't be surprised when other candidates and voters take your statements at face value instead of trying to guess what you really meant.

Luka504 wrote:

You tell me to "stop saying" that small gifts would stimulate the gem economy, but then you tell me that I am right. Which is it? It's quite obvious that using energy is preferable to gems, due to its free nature, but many users will attest to their impatience when it comes to getting new worlds, blocks, or smileys. When an option to get an item instantly is present, many will take that option, even if it costs money. And just as I have already said, even if this plan does not turn out to be a success, it doesn't matter, because no money is lost through giving away small gifts and any goodwill fostered is still a net gain. No "theory broken," just "theory not thought about critically."
No you havent said anything to change my mind, since there is one thing that proves people are willing to try something thats free more:

This is a chart that shows how many people choose a free version rather than a paid one. As you can see, the Free-to-play keeps rising from 2008, but Pay-to-Play numbers is roughly the same as it was in 2008.
Also ,,But u used dat chart for paying to play det game bloehelum,, is invalid since this shows how people are unwilling to pay for something even if something costs 1 dollar.
Theory rebroken, enjoy.

I'll be completely honest, I'm not sure what half of this means, but I'll deal with the parts I do understand.

We all know that free-to-play games get more plays than pay-to-play games. That is completely irrelevant to Everybody Edits, which is and always has been free-to-play. You may have meant to direct this at a candidate who wishes to turn the game into a pay-to-play model, but that is not part of my platform. Microtransactions and pay-to-play do not have to go hand in hand, and in fact, microtransactions are a great source of revenue along with advertisements for free-to-play games. Every single player in the history of Everybody Edits has been "willing to try something thats free," because that is the only way to play the game.

Actually, I think you've only helped my theory by reaffirming that free-to-play is the best way to continue Everybody Edits, and microtransactions are most likely the best source of revenue going forward for a game not making money through other means. As you have already conceded, a good way to stimulate the gem economy and get microtransactions flowing would be to give away small gifts to foster goodwill and make players more willing to support the game. Thank you for evolving on this issue and agreeing with me once more.

N1KF · 2016-03-29 21:27:57

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

As you have already conceded, a good way to stimulate the gem economy and get microtransactions flowing would be to give away small gifts to foster goodwill and make players more willing to support the game. Thank you for evolving on this issue and agreeing with me once more.

Some players may respond negatively to that, however. As the Not-President, how would you deal with that?

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-29 21:36:15

N1KF wrote:

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:
As you have already conceded, a good way to stimulate the gem economy and get microtransactions flowing would be to give away small gifts to foster goodwill and make players more willing to support the game. Thank you for evolving on this issue and agreeing with me once more.
Some players may respond negatively to that, however. As the Not-President, how would you deal with that?

Assuming that the process can get underway bug-free and completely transparently, if a majority or vocal minority of users responded negatively or critically, I would look into why they are unhappy with the system and work to change it to ensure maximum satisfaction, even if that means removing it or completely reworking it to become something unlike what it was.

Luka504 · 2016-03-29 22:38:12

I'll be completely honest, I'm not sure what half of this means, but I'll deal with the parts I do understand.
We all know that free-to-play games get more plays than pay-to-play games. That is completely irrelevant to Everybody Edits, which is and always has been free-to-play. You may have meant to direct this at a candidate who wishes to turn the game into a pay-to-play model, but that is not part of my platform. Microtransactions and pay-to-play do not have to go hand in hand, and in fact, microtransactions are a great source of revenue along with advertisements for free-to-play games. Every single player in the history of Everybody Edits has been "willing to try something thats free," because that is the only way to play the game.
Actually, I think you've only helped my theory by reaffirming that free-to-play is the best way to continue Everybody Edits, and microtransactions are most likely the best source of revenue going forward for a game not making money through other means. As you have already conceded, a good way to stimulate the gem economy and get microtransactions flowing would be to give away small gifts to foster goodwill and make players more willing to support the game. Thank you for evolving on this issue and agreeing with me once more.

Yes sure and you say im clueless. (Dont say u didnt say that, read your post how i did not understand questions.)
This is pretty solid proof i have to be extremely precise when i talk to you otherwise you will make up stories that are not even there.
There are two ways to be able to buy (the majority) of items in EE
-Energy (which is free)
-Gems (which cost money)
The CHART represents how many people are willing to spend money on a video game (which includes in game purchases)
As you can see, the number of people who play FREE games is a lot higher than people who spend money in any way.
And since the chart shows that the number of people who pay for the game is pretty much the same as it was in 2008.
The theory of ,,free items make people spend money,, is invalid.
Since people don spend more beacuse of dumb gifts i can conclude:
Your arguments are flawed and theory broken. Ktnxbai.
Also, i never helped you ,,prove,, free to play is the best, since no party has ever suggested making EE pay-to-play.

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-29 22:53:40

Luka504 wrote:

I'll be completely honest, I'm not sure what half of this means, but I'll deal with the parts I do understand.
We all know that free-to-play games get more plays than pay-to-play games. That is completely irrelevant to Everybody Edits, which is and always has been free-to-play. You may have meant to direct this at a candidate who wishes to turn the game into a pay-to-play model, but that is not part of my platform. Microtransactions and pay-to-play do not have to go hand in hand, and in fact, microtransactions are a great source of revenue along with advertisements for free-to-play games. Every single player in the history of Everybody Edits has been "willing to try something thats free," because that is the only way to play the game.
Actually, I think you've only helped my theory by reaffirming that free-to-play is the best way to continue Everybody Edits, and microtransactions are most likely the best source of revenue going forward for a game not making money through other means. As you have already conceded, a good way to stimulate the gem economy and get microtransactions flowing would be to give away small gifts to foster goodwill and make players more willing to support the game. Thank you for evolving on this issue and agreeing with me once more.
Yes sure and you say im clueless. (Dont say u didnt say that, read your post how i did not understand questions.)
This is pretty solid proof i have to be extremely precise when i talk to you otherwise you will make up stories that are not even there.
There are two ways to be able to buy (the majority) of items in EE
-Energy (which is free)
-Gems (which cost money)
The CHART represents how many people are willing to spend money on a video game (which includes in game purchases)
As you can see, the number of people who play FREE games is a lot higher than people who spend money in any way.
And since the chart shows that the number of people who pay for the game is pretty much the same as it was in 2008.
The theory of ,,free items make people spend money,, is invalid. Theory broken, 3rd time man.
Also, i never helped you ,,prove,, free to play is the best, since no party has ever suggested making EE pay-to-play.

You are completely misunderstanding the chart that you brought up. It's interesting how you seem to commonly misunderstand things important to the campaign. Your chart shows a comparison of free-to-play and pay-to-play games. Spending money in a game does not make it pay-to-play. In-game purchases do not make a game pay-to-play. A game is only pay-to-play when you have to pay to play it. You keep claiming that you have "broken" my theory, but you've only either strengthened it or provided completely irrelevant information. And as to when you claimed that "no party has ever suggested making EE pay-to-play," JaWapa may have something to say about that.

JaWapa wrote:

Should the shop be more easily accessible to new players with discounts and bonuses?
Rather than having a shop, Everybody Edits should be a pay-to-play. When a user signs up, they pay a flat-rate fee of $1.50 (USD), and get access to everything. The game would have a higher revenue.

He has clearly stated in his platform that he wants to make Everybody Edits pay-to-play. The way you completely missed his proposal, along with the radical nature of it, leads me to believe you haven't thoroughly studied the campaigns of other candidates in the race. Are you even taking this election seriously? You gloss over pertinent questions, provide random and irrelevant information and then misunderstand it, you don't seem to know the platforms that the other candidates are running on. I don't see much difference between your campaign and that of Onjit or AsurcH, except that their nonsensical rants occasionally turn out to be humorous.

Bimps · 2016-03-29 23:57:25

HEY LOOK GUYS IT IS STILL THE THIRD POLL BUT YOU SHOULD VOOOOOOOOOOOOOTE[

mrjawapa · 2016-03-30 03:35:34

People of Mafia, Everistan,

Sorry for the delay in my campaign. I was bed ridden with a terrible virus. My campaign will be resuming immediately.

JaWapa,
Join me in this eendeavor

SmittyW · 2016-03-30 03:37:20

You were banned

Pingohits, Kirby

mrjawapa · 2016-03-30 03:46:51

SmittyW. wrote:

You were banned

Banned from leaving the bathroom. That gas station sushi was no bueno.

SmittyW

jonhvictor2004sonic · 2016-03-30 06:49:31

IDK how to sign this,but imma going with benjaminsos,
Hail Pro-trolling!

N1KF · 2016-03-30 07:05:04

jonhvictor2004sonic wrote:

Hail Pro-trolling!

While I can understand the desire for freedom of trolling (which is the view I have), I would be rather concerned for a Not-President that celebrates and encourages it. Trolling brings others down for one's own benefits, so desiring that to happen may create a rude, undesirable atmosphere for new players. Be careful what you wish for.

32OrtonEdge32dh

Luka504 · 2016-03-30 07:59:22

You are completely misunderstanding the chart that you brought up. It's interesting how you seem to commonly misunderstand things important to the campaign. Your chart shows a comparison of free-to-play and pay-to-play games. Spending money in a game does not make it pay-to-play. In-game purchases do not make a game pay-to-play. A game is only pay-to-play when you have to pay to play it. You keep claiming that you have "broken" my theory, but you've only either strengthened it or provided completely irrelevant information. And as to when you claimed that "no party has ever suggested making EE pay-to-play," JaWapa may have something to say about that.

See!? You keep nitpicking on the smallest details!
Yes sorry, the words are a bit different even though they are the same exact thing.
Fine ill retry ONE more time and if you still dont understand i will give up on you entirely.

This is the point i tried to bring up the entire time. People are unwilling to BUY a game for even 1 dollar.
Meaning the amount of players who do in game purchases is still roughly the same as it was in 2008.
,,But u editd du pictur blrswlsl,,
I did, but it still doesnt change the fact im right. I had to edit the image or you will nitpick on the difference between free to play or pay to play, which in this argument is pretty irrelevant.
Theory broken, end of story, bai.

And as to when you claimed that "no party has ever suggested making EE pay-to-play," JaWapa may have something to say about that.

Ok.... What does this change? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

mrjawapa · 2016-03-30 12:09:39

Luka504 wrote:

Meaning the amount of players who do in game purchases is still roughly the same as it was in 2008.

You're not understanding your own graph. The part you are referring to, is the number of people who spent money to play the game, not the number of people who spent money on in-game items. Totally different.

Luka504 wrote:

I did, but it still doesnt change the fact im right.

Yeah... but we don't know what you're even arguing. You've changed your stance every three posts. So I guess, yeah, being that you've held every view point on this, you would be right.

Ladies and gentlemen, Luka, you're future prez.
kthxbai.

32OrtonEdge32dh

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#201 2016-03-29 09:25:22

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#202 2016-03-29 09:45:00

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#203 2016-03-29 12:22:19, last edited by Luka504 (2016-03-29 12:23:09)

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#204 2016-03-29 16:43:16

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#205 2016-03-29 16:49:58

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#206 2016-03-29 17:14:28

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#207 2016-03-29 18:06:59, last edited by 32OrtonEdge32dh (2016-03-29 18:07:13)

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#208 2016-03-29 18:12:21

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#209 2016-03-29 19:34:36

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#210 2016-03-29 19:59:14

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#211 2016-03-29 20:24:10

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#212 2016-03-29 20:36:16

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#213 2016-03-29 20:48:02

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#214 2016-03-29 21:27:57

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#215 2016-03-29 21:36:15

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#216 2016-03-29 22:38:12, last edited by Luka504 (2016-03-29 22:41:41)

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#217 2016-03-29 22:53:40

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#218 2016-03-29 23:57:25

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#219 2016-03-30 03:35:34

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#220 2016-03-30 03:37:20

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#221 2016-03-30 03:46:51

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#222 2016-03-30 06:49:31

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#223 2016-03-30 07:05:04

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#224 2016-03-30 07:59:22, last edited by Luka504 (2016-03-30 08:04:38)

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#225 2016-03-30 12:09:39

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

Board footer